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

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

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

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

BG> But then I don't call that twitting, just judicious message
BG> base maintenance, although a fully-featured inbuilt twitter
BG> should ideally perform this function as well.  AFAIK, none will
BG> currently do both hiding and deleting of specific messages.

Yeah, I think the name isnt very appropriate at all really coz
its just another variation on the general question of mailbase
maint. It just that with some stuff, like say OS wars, you may
choose to not have those in your mailbase coz you arent interested.

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.

BG> They may not be the ideal solution, but at least they are
BG> available if required, and I use at least two different utes
BG> with my message base, Netmanager and WIMM.

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

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

BG> Ideally, their functionality should have been part of the message
BG> reader/editor, but the fact that they weren't has forced somebody
BG> who did need those functions to write quite competent third party
BG> utes which do the job quite well, and for much the same end result.

Yes, but thats just another way of saying the message reader is fucked.

BG> The fact that this is even possible actually allows quite a large
BG> degree of customisation.

Yes, but again, I still maintain that the right way to do that is
customisation in a full featured message reader. Not addon utes.
Mainly because with utes you have to hunt down the alts, find one
that does what you want, get it installed and configured, tolerate
the sometimes rather gross discontinuitys in the user interface etc.
And have a jury rigged collection which may not be that stable too.

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

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

The most I ever do is with something like Nortons, may well chose to
either install the DOS or Win versions of some of the major stuff.

BG> But then you run the risk of such a program being less than perfect
BG> in some areas, which is why I prefer to use addons which have been
BG> made for just one specific purpose.

Trouble is that it usually doesnt actually work like that. Take
the spelling checking as a classic example. You just cant get
the same total integration with an addon, its just not possible.

RS> Take the simple question of a spelling checker. Some people
RS> just spell well enough that they dont need one or are too
RS> 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.  |-)

I dont ignore its recommendations, I tell it that I am the boss and
thats the way to spell it. It behaves like the obedient little droid
it is and says 'sure Rod, whatever you say baarse'

RS> The fully integrated one has lots of advantages tho. It only checks
RS> the non quoted text for starters. The most fully integrated ones even
RS> keep track of the checker override stuff for a particular message so
RS> if you reedit the same message you dont have to say a second time that
RS> tho a particular 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.

Yep, does all of that.

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

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

I think even if they arent.

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

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

--- PQWK202