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.

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

BG> Sure, but almost all software has the ability to be destructive
BG> in the case of operator error, or even an incorrect command.

Yes, and thats precisely why its more desirable to mark the message
to make it invisible and not to actually physically purge it from the
mail base so its gone forever, precisely because its not reversible if
you stuff up or something else stuffs up. If you mark it so it becomes
invisible, that can always be reversed if necessary.

BG> The more complex such a twitter becomes, the more error checking
BG> needs to be employed.

The trouble is tho in that case you really cant. If they user is trying
to specify what constitutes a message which is part of the OS wars, no
software can do error checking on what the user thinks is a rule which
will just delete messages in an OS war. The user has to do that stuff
by trial and error, try a rule, see if it works. For example you could
try twitting every message in a particular area which has a to or from
field with a list of people and which also contains say OS/2 or Windoze.

BG> I see your point, but if somebody cocks up in the config, then it's
BG> basically their fault, so stuff 'em, I say.

Nope, the answer is to NOT just assume the rules are perfect and delete
the mail forever. You need a reversible mechanism.

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.

RS> I dont believe in these addon utes myself in general. They are
RS> viable if there is no alternative but IMO its a function that
RS> should be part of a fully integrated mail reader, not an addon ute.

BG> Given that this is a feature which most people would rarely,
BG> if ever use (do you ever twit people, 'cos despite what I tell
BG> RTL et al, I don't really?),

No, I never ever twit anyone. The most I ever do is just ultra speed
read over some stuff which looks useless, mainly incase its actually
got a sidetrack into somewhere else in it which I do want to see.

BG> a complex twitter would in most cases be useless extra baggage in
BG> the form of redundant code.  Probably far better to have say the
BG> reader AND twitter written by the same author, but as separate (but
BG> integratable) programs, and leave the ultimate choice up to the user.

That in many ways is my fundamental objection to so much of the point
software and other message base code. Its far far too ad hoc, lots of
funny little utes, usually not very well integrated with each other
and you can very easily end up with a complete fucking dogs breakfast
very quickly.

Take the simple question of a spelling checker. Some people just spell
well enough that they dont need one or are too irritated with the use
of a US dictionary etc to use one. The fully integrated one has lots
of advantages tho. It only checks the non quoted text for starters.
The most fully integrated ones even keep track of the checker override
stuff for a particular message so if you reedit the same message you
dont have to say a second time that tho a particular word looks wrong,
it is what you want to include. You can never get that sort of close
integration with funky utes added on. Let alone the very fundamental
question of the integration of the user interface across the collection.

IMO lots of utes is just dinosaur technology. You have to hunt them down
and install them too. With a full horsepower system with all that stuff
fully integrated, its all just there, you choose to use it or you dont.
Far far better IMO.

And you also get another effect where you can just defer the more fancy
stuff till you get around to it. Say with a spreadsheet, lots of people
never actually use a Parse function. But its just there if someone says
to you 'you should be doing that with the Parse function'. You dont have
to run around on the nets finding it and installing it etc at all, just
use it.

--- PQWK202