Rod, at 10:49 on Wed, Feb 15 1995, you wrote to Bill Grimsley ...

BG> I currently run Netmanager on a weekly basis in the echo where I 
BG> keep a larger message base, completely deleting those messages from 
BG> people whose stuff I rarely read anyway, but always after I've read
BG> or scanned all new messages first. This is done purely to keep the 
BG> base to a reasonable level, and ensure that some important messages 
BG> don't scroll of the end for at least 10-12 weeks (in case I need to 
BG> refer to them again during the course of a particular thread).

RS> True, you do need a proper delete as far as the mailbase aging is 
RS> concerned. Not just twits either, you may well want to keep some 
RS> areas much longer than others.

Squish is actually quite competent in this area, as it can be configured to
maintain the mailbase by the number of messages, the minimum period of time
to keep them, or a combination of both.  Pity about its UI though.  It
simply doesn't have one, just several command line executables, which makes
for a rather steep learning curve (OK for batch file use though, which is
probably how it was desgned anyway).  I'm no programmer, but I doubt it
would be all that difficuly to write a front-end "shell" from
which its echoareas and specific values could be set, via
"thumbwheels" or similar preferably.  And a decent installation
routine is mandatory IMO.  Same applies to Binkley.

BG> Agreed, although by their very nature, the add-on apps only work on 
BG> 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.

Not the ideal solution, I know, but until they're integrated into the app
itself, what choice do we have?

RS> I'm essentially saying that thats one of the pretty gross 
RS> deficiencys of that older style of software, it does use that 
RS> addon mentality which can very quickly become a ramshackle 
RS> unstable mess.

True, have a squiz at this little lot...

13-02-95   9:48        888           0  binkley.cfg
 8-06-94  14:35        643           0  COMPRESS.CFG
15-12-94  17:02        371           0  fastlst.cfg
 7-02-95   7:50       2908           0  msged.cfg
15-12-94  17:03        762           0  netmgr.cfg
29-10-94   8:48        200           0  ROUTE.CFG
13-02-95   9:45       2152           0  squish.cfg
15-12-94  17:04        239           0  wimm.cfg
15-12-94  17:01        396           0  backup.cmd
15-12-94  17:22        740           0  bt.cmd
13-02-95   9:44        212           0  compile.cmd
 8-06-94  14:36         23           0  ME.CMD
15-12-94  17:00         42           0  pack.cmd
15-12-94  17:03        141           0  purge.cmd
17-05-94  21:57        169           0  TOSS.CMD

If that ain't a bloody dog's breakfast, I don't know what is!  

RS> You see the same thing even with just file managing on a PC, 
RS> lots of funky greps and file finders and stuff, when what you
RS> actually need is a proper integrated file manager in the 
RS> class of Magellan etc.

This is actually one area where there is now some very good software
available (for OS/2, but possibly other platforms as well), fully
integrated GUI file managers, object oriented, archiver shell included.

BG> As you rightly suggest, the only real alternative would be to
BG> include all possible functions in the program, but allow 
BG> modular installation, so that those who neither want nor need 
BG> twitting or message base deletion, needn't carry around the 
BG> extra baggage of unwanted or unnecessary code.

RS> I'm not convinced that thats all that important, being able 
RS> to leave it out. 

Well, when I installed WFW for example, I had no need for the 20-odd
filters supplied, nor the tutorial, and by not installing these useless
things, I saved ~5Mb of HD space.  I think the user should have the option
to determine for himself whether he needs something or not.

RS> OLX for example isnt that big, the fact that I hardly ever use the 
RS> forward capability and never use the outgoing fax support, doesnt 
RS> worry me. The total executable and help files isnt even half a meg. 
RS> Thats not even 50c at current hard disk prices. And even if you 
RS> dumped say all the optional stuff like spelling checking too you 
RS> wouldnt likely save even a $1. Not worth the hassle IMO.

Sure, but OLX isn't a particularly large program anyway.  In fact,
considering its abilities, it's surprisingly small.  Mainstream apps like
WFW or Lotus are immense these days, and some (most?) people simply have no
need for the majority of installed features.  However, I digress from the
subject at hand, these aren't mail readers.

RS> Take the spelling checking as a classic example. You just cant get 
RS> the same total integration with an addon, its just not possible.

True.

RS> Some people just spell well enough that they dont need one or are 
RS> too irritated with the use of a US dictionary etc to use one.

BG> Or some other people actually use them, yet seemingly completely 
BG> ignore the spelling checker's recommendations.  No names though.  

RS> I dont ignore its recommendations, I tell it that I am the boss and 
RS> thats the way to spell it. 

Oh well, being a US checker, you're halfway there I guess.  |-)

RS> It behaves like the obedient little droid it is and says 'sure Rod, 
RS> whatever you say baarse'

See, not only does it continually question the correct spelling of words by
offering the US alternative, it doesn't even speak properly!

RS> The most fully integrated ones even keep track of the checker 
RS> override stuff for a particular message so if you reedit the same 
RS> message you dont have to say a second time that tho a particular 
RS> word looks wrong, it is what you want to include.

BG> OLX doesn't quite go that far, does it?  I can't remember now.

RS> Yep, does all of that.

I'll be buggered, I never noticed that before.  I'd often wondered why you
seemingly liked OLX so much, but it appears that you've discovered features
that I didn't even know existed.

BG> As long as they're user-selectable install options, I agree.

RS> I think even if they arent.

BG> Agreed.  Damn, all this agreeing with you is no fun at all. |-)

RS> Yeah, getting a tad monotonous, try harder boy |-)

Sorry, I'll piss off and top myself.  Will that do?


Regards, Bill

--- Msgedsq/2 2.2e