From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:47:30 PST." <77cfdf8935c75cce2ed4d9e152cfc70e@centurytel.net> From: "Russ Cox" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7994.1071538036.1@t40.swtch.com> Message-Id: Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:27:16 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: a53e2766-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > I added a Forward option for acme/mail. I've been using it a few days. I > was careful to leave the Q/Reply/all behavior unchanged. I'd rather find a way to unify Forward and Reply. Rob already pointed out that this is way too much text in the tags. What does Forward do differently from Reply? Looks like it prints "Fwd: " instead of "Re: " in the subject line. Do you really forward enough mail that it's more work to double-click on "Re" and type "Fwd" than it was to do all this editing? If we don't put Forward in the tag, then clicking Reply, then double-click "Re", then type "Fwd" is still less work than typing "Forward" and clicking on it. Perhaps there should be a way to set the default Mail tags, and then Forward would be a little easier to stomach, and you could have |spell (probably Edit ,>spell) and Undo. But I'm very wary of that too. Using Unix software way too much over the last few months, I have been reminded daily of the first lesson I learned from Rob: adding interface options is no substitute for getting the interface right to begin with. Russ