Rod, at 08:47 on Sun, Feb 12 1995, you wrote to Bill Grimsley ...

BG> Sure, but almost all software has the ability to be destructive in 
BG> 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 
RS> necessary.

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

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

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. 

They may not be the ideal solution, but at least they are available if
required, and I use at least two different utes with my message base,
Netmanager and WIMM.  Ideally, their functionality should have been part of
the message reader/editor, but the fact that they weren't has forced
somebody who did need those functions to write quite competent third party
utes which do the job quite well, and for much the same end result.  The
fact that this is even possible actually allows quite a large degree of
customisation.  


RS> They are viable if there is no alternative but IMO its a function 
RS> that should be part of a fully integrated mail reader, not an addon
RS> ute.

As you rightly suggest, the only real alternative would be to include all
possible functions in the program, but allow modular installation, so that
those who neither want nor need twitting or message base deletion, needn't
carry around the extra baggage of unwanted or unnecessary code.  But then
you run the risk of such a program being less than perfect in some areas,
which is why I prefer to use addons which have been made for just one
specific purpose.

BG> do you ever twit people, 'cos despite what I tell RTL et al, I 
BG> don't really?

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

Yeah, same here (but don't tell Ron or Russell, will you?).  |-)

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.

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

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

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

RS> You can never get that sort of close integration with funky utes 
RS> added on. 

Sure, no argument with that.

RS> Let alone the very fundamental question of the integration of 
RS> the user interface across the collection.

Yeah, that really is a complete dog's breakfast at the moment.

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

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

RS> And you also get another effect where you can just defer the more 
RS> fancy stuff till you get around to it. Say with a spreadsheet, lots 
RS> of people never actually use a Parse function. 

And lots of people don't even use a spreadsheet either.  |-)

RS> But its just there if someone says to you 'you should be doing that 
RS> with the Parse function'. You dont have to run around on the nets 
RS> finding it and installing it etc at all, just use it.

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

Regards, Bill

--- Msgedsq/2 2.2e