Good evening Roelof, on Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:59:58 +0200 GMT your local time you wrote:
RO> As you can see in my messages in this thread, I'm not quite in favour RO> of people doing this like you're suggesting. well, Roelof, I can understand your point of view - and it isn't a new one. In Fidonet this discussion lasted at least 10 years :-) Of course, without any well accepted result. In general I agree that no software shall alter a message. But isn't a message also altered in transit by adding header lines? I really trust in TB *because* it saves messages exactly that way the user wrote it and does not alter it before or after sending. But! If I (the user) instruct TB to add a special header after sending the message then it happens on my request, with my knowledge. It is exactly the way *I* want it to be and therefore TB should be allowed to do so. Of course as an option which is inactive by default. RO> But as usual it is possible to do what you want with a RO> filter, the filter below will do what you want: Yes, that is possible but very unhandy. A simple switch would make life much easier ;-) and wouldn't have all the drawbacks your filter has. Let me make a third suggestion: The best way to keep track about the date/time a message has actually been sent would be an addition to the database. TB must only save the references to the sent messages and the date/time of sending. This information could, for example, be displayed in the headers context menu. Your opinion? -- Regards, Peter Using Ritlabs SecureBat! 2.12.4 (OS: Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 2) ________________________________________________ Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
