On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 12:50:03PM -0700, Randolph S. Kahle wrote: > There is a big difference. It has to do with the cost of switching > context. > > I have a report sent to me each morning with a list of the email > messages held in the pending area (I have about 20 to 30 each day). I > scan that list and look for email that I should let through. Then I > manually "accept" each message I am interested in reading (probably one > every third day).
This idea of being able to scan a condensed report of pending messages, and then perform bulk actions, is certainly legitimate. The one problem with tmda-pending is that it's interactive, forcing you to examine each and every pending message (yes, I'm aware of the batch facilities -- see below). This definitely is time-consuming, and defeats the purpose of TMDA. However, I can see the NO_CONFIRM_MESSAGE working in conjunction with a web-based display of pending messages, where message headers (tweaked via TERSE_SUMMARY_HEADERS) are presented in a per-line format, with easily-selectable actions that can be performed in-bulk. (Yes, I know tmda-pending offers this facility, but it's awkward to use and not very user-friendly.) If NO_CONFIRM_MESSAGE is simply implemented without addressing the entire scenario of how to quickly and efficiently handle pending message, the advantages of NO_CONFIRM_MESSAGE will be lost. --Brian
msg00006/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
