RS> And its not everyones definition of a twitter.
RS> Like all design issues, its more complex than that.

BG> True, although it is also my definition of what a true twitter should do.

RS> I think its quite the wrong way to do it with a complex twitter that
RS> can say just drop messages from a particular person in a particular
RS> area or drop messages on a particular subject in a particular area.

BG> I'd have thought that to be the ideal form for an end-user or QWK
BG> user.  If I was going to twit somebody, it would mean that I have
BG> no interest in their messages whatsoever, and would logically prefer
BG> them to be physically removed from my message base, permanently.

You have had a brain fart here. That discussion was about what is the
best way to do a COMPLEX twitter, where you DONT just have a very simple
rule for what constitutes a twit. Yes, if you have a very simple rule
it may well be adequate to just drop those messages forever with no
possibility of recovering them. BUT if you have a more complex twitter,
say one which drops messages in particular areas only, or attempts to
twit on what the message is about, THEN you need more safety, because
you will inevitably have more risk of stuffing the rules up and want
to change your mind or try tuning the rules for best results.

RS> For example someone who hates OS wars may want to drop messages which
RS> are the shots in an OS war. As soon as you have a complete twit rule
RS> system, you need some safety and not just dump the messages forever,
RS> coz inevitably you will get the twitting rules a bit screwed at times.

BG> Don't understand this at all.  Why should it matter?

Because by definition a complex set of rules are harder to get right.
Its very easy to get the name of a person you want totally dropped right
and even if you spell their name wrong you will see that the messages
arent dropped and so you can fix the rule. BUT with a complex set of
rules which attempt to say drop messages in OS wars, its much harder to
get the rules right, more likely you will want to fiddle and tune and
of the messages which were dropped in error are gone forever you cant.

RS> IMO if you want a fancy twitter it has to be in the reader, not
RS> the converter. If only coz the fancier it gets the more likely
RS> you are to want to tune it.

BG> Agreed, although by their very nature, the add-on apps only work
BG> on the message base itself, which to me is the best method anyway.
BG> Lump them together in a batch file, and away you go.

I dont believe in these addon utes myself in general. They are viable
if there is no alternative but IMO its a function that should be part
of a fully integrated mail reader, not an addon ute. Partly because
the same logic which is appropriate for a fancy twitter is also what
you want for a fancy system which can search your mail base. If you
can vaguely remember some discussion on say Trident cards crashing,
and you want to search and extract those to a logical area for perusal,
you are using the bulk of the logic of a fancy twitter anyway. So its
best fully integrated into a full power mailreader.

BG> I'm unaware of any OLR or native mailer software which actually
BG> removes messages from the database.  Only accessory apps like
BG> WIMM or NetMgr are capable of doing this AFAIK.

RS> Even thats not true. You think of QWK readers and other OLRs as the
RS> common form where they dont have a mail base. Many of them actually
RS> do have a mail base just like a point system does. There is a whole
RS> class of whats generally called database QWK readers alone.

BG> Sure, but don't these just make the twitted name transparent to
BG> the reader, rather than physically deleting the message in toto?

Yes, mostly. And IMO thats the only sensible way to go with a complex
twitter for the reasons given up the top. Some of them will actually
twit like you like, just not put the twitted messages into the database
from the QWKs at all.

RS> And they normally do have twitters which work on the database.

BG> I know of none which will actually delete the message though.

Its not delete so much as its more appropriate to just not put them
into the database from the QWK in the first place.

--- PQWK202