Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Russ Cox]

> 	Elm and Mutt use "bounce" and it's a very nifty feature.  But
> 	forwarding then is a case of Mime-enclosing (or otherwise isolating)
> 	the original message in a bigger scope where the forwarder can add
> 	her comments.
>
> Nedmail already does all this.  You just lose it
> with the acme interface.

this just isn't true.

acme mail Reply is exactly like R.

if you want M, you just change
the address list in the reply message window.
same typing as having to say the address
list in the initial M command.

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[David Presotto]

	Elm and Mutt use "bounce" and it's a very nifty feature.  But
	forwarding then is a case of Mime-enclosing (or otherwise isolating)
	the original message in a bigger scope where the forwarder can add
	her comments.

Nedmail already does all this.  You just lose it
with the acme interface.

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[David Presotto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 165 bytes --]

So it does (doing this with acme mail).  Guess
I should try it more often (except that I've already
made 6 mistakes chording and this is only a 4
line message).

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1957 bytes --]

From: David Presotto <presotto@closedmind.org>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:36:09 -0500
Message-ID: <9d4c20b77b4ced33e02bf15da127b291@plan9.bell-labs.com>

	Elm and Mutt use "bounce" and it's a very nifty feature.  But
	forwarding then is a case of Mime-enclosing (or otherwise isolating)
	the original message in a bigger scope where the forwarder can add
	her comments.

Nedmail already does all this.  You just lose it
with the acme interface.

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[David Lukes]

Charles Forsyth wrote:

>>>once I've licked the ASN.1/S/MIME/PEM/X.509/LDAP/Remote Desktop/everything
>>>OSI project I'm losing my sanity on right now :-)
>>>
>>>
>
>just say, ``what were you actually trying to do?'', i find it works well.
>all right, fairly well.
>
>
I beg to differ with a usually superior intellect.

If you ask the above, they will _invariably_ say,
"Well, we're trying to build a GOSIP compatible protocol stack with JNT
protocol compatibility to
accommodate the following unused legacy applications ...<zzz/> ...
X.25 over IP with a secret encapsulation, for security ... <snore/> ..."
...
and the next thing you're aware of is one or more of:
1) waking from a deep slumber
2) remembering why you packed the automatic weapon and lots of clips.

Cheers,
    Dave.

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[andrey mirtchovski]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:

> > I think we're underestimating the receiver's inteligence here. I myself
> > have always been happy with hitting 'Reply', changing the To: field and
> > letting the other side figure it out.
>
> it was established earlier this is the way to do it.
>

My post meant I agree with Russ, though you just saw the rationale...

andrey

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Skip Tavakkolian]

> I think we're underestimating the receiver's inteligence here. I myself
> have always been happy with hitting 'Reply', changing the To: field and
> letting the other side figure it out.

it was established earlier this is the way to do it.

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Skip Tavakkolian]

>> subject line should say something like "by way of ...", where '...' is
>
> And these are more descriptive than Fwd; why?
>

So the reader knows who forwarded it, without having to sleuth it out
of the headers.

> Sounds like more NIH-syndrome.

In fact it is Not-Invented-Here. I've seen this way of forwarding in
Qualcomm's Eudora.

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[andrey mirtchovski]

I think we're underestimating the receiver's inteligence here. I myself
have always been happy with hitting 'Reply', changing the To: field and
letting the other side figure it out.

Never failed so far...

andrey

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Charles Forsyth]

>>once I've licked the ASN.1/S/MIME/PEM/X.509/LDAP/Remote Desktop/everything
>>OSI project I'm losing my sanity on right now :-)

just say, ``what were you actually trying to do?'', i find it works well.
all right, fairly well.

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Lucio De Re]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:47:42PM +0100, Axel Belinfante wrote:
>
> In (e.g.) mh there is a separate command to do that:
> redist(ribute), which uses Resent-* headers.

Elm and Mutt use "bounce" and it's a very nifty feature.  But
forwarding then is a case of Mime-enclosing (or otherwise isolating)
the original message in a bigger scope where the forwarder can add
her comments.

I have had no cause to disagree with such conventions and in fact
find acme/mail lacking in that department (no criticism intended,
I plan to put my programming skill to the test in that direction
once I've licked the ASN.1/S/MIME/PEM/X.509/LDAP/Remote Desktop/everything
OSI project I'm losing my sanity on right now :-)

++L

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Russ Cox]

> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:47:42PM +0100, Axel Belinfante wrote:
> >
> > In (e.g.) mh there is a separate command to do that:
> > redist(ribute), which uses Resent-* headers.
>
> Elm and Mutt use "bounce" and it's a very nifty feature.

The Resent- dance is awful.  Most mailers don't present
resent messages very well, causing the recipient to think
it's a direct message, which usually leads to "now how on
earth did this get to me?" or "I didn't know I was on that
mailing list!".

> But
> forwarding then is a case of Mime-enclosing (or otherwise isolating)
> the original message in a bigger scope where the forwarder can add
> her comments.

This is exactly what acme Mail does, no?

Russ

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Axel Belinfante]

> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
>
> > Initially I was thinking that the forwarded message should look like
> > it came from the original sender (not the forwarding person),

(just diluting the discussion, but anyway:)

In (e.g.) mh there is a separate command to do that:
redist(ribute), which uses Resent-* headers.

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Jim Choate]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:

> Initially I was thinking that the forwarded message should look like
> it came from the original sender (not the forwarding person),

Which will automatically lock it out of mailing lists that are
subscriber-only filtered.

> subject line should say something like "by way of ...", where '...' is

And these are more descriptive than Fwd; why?

Sounds like more NIH-syndrome.

 -- --

Open Forge, LLC  24/365 Onsite Support for PCs, Networks, & Game Consoles
512-695-4126 (Austin, Tx.)  help@open-forge.com  irc.open-forge.com

Hangar 18  Open Source Distributed Computing Using Plan 9 & Linux
512-451-7087  http://open-forge.org/hangar18  irc.open-forge.org

James Choate  512-451-7087  ravage@ssz.com  jchoate@open-forge.com

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Skip Tavakkolian]

> 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?

Enough over the last year that I felt I wanted it.

Initially I was thinking that the forwarded message should look like
it came from the original sender (not the forwarding person), and the
subject line should say something like "by way of ...", where '...' is
the user forwarding the message.  It was a passing thought.

> 
> 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.

That is how I forwarded before, and it isn't a major issue to go back
to it in order to stay in sync with sources.

> 
> 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.

Would it have helped if tag was more like ~~sam~~ buffer?

> 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.

All I said was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.' ☺

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Jim Choate]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Russ Cox wrote:

> No, they're not.  In both cases you're writing a
> new message to someone with the current message
> mime-attached with type rfc822.  The only difference
> is the subject line (as I pointed out above) and the default
> destination (as you point out above).  The default
> destination for Reply is some address on the message,
> but Forward has no sensible default.

Exactly, thank you for agreeing with -all- my points.

Re: 'knows' the destination address because it's the place you got the
mail From:.

Fwd: has no such destination because computers can't read minds.

Happy Holidays.

 -- --

Open Forge, LLC  24/365 Onsite Support for PCs, Networks, & Game Consoles
512-695-4126 (Austin, Tx.)  help@open-forge.com  irc.open-forge.com

Hangar 18  Open Source Distributed Computing Using Plan 9 & Linux
512-451-7087  http://open-forge.org/hangar18  irc.open-forge.org

James Choate  512-451-7087  ravage@ssz.com  jchoate@open-forge.com

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Jim Choate]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Russ Cox wrote:

> What does Forward do differently from Reply?
> Looks like it prints "Fwd: " instead of "Re: " in the
> subject line.

I'm truly stunned at this...

Fwd is to a completely -different- destination.

Re is to the source of the traffic.

They are fundamentaly different functions.

 -- --

Open Forge, LLC  24/365 Onsite Support for PCs, Networks, & Game Consoles
512-695-4126 (Austin, Tx.)  help@open-forge.com  irc.open-forge.com

Hangar 18  Open Source Distributed Computing Using Plan 9 & Linux
512-451-7087  http://open-forge.org/hangar18  irc.open-forge.org

James Choate  512-451-7087  ravage@ssz.com  jchoate@open-forge.com

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Russ Cox]

> > What does Forward do differently from Reply?
> > Looks like it prints "Fwd: " instead of "Re: " in the
> > subject line.
>
> I'm truly stunned at this...
>
> Fwd is to a completely -different- destination.
>
> Re is to the source of the traffic.
>
> They are fundamentaly different functions.

No, they're not.  In both cases you're writing a
new message to someone with the current message
mime-attached with type rfc822.  The only difference
is the subject line (as I pointed out above) and the default
destination (as you point out above).  The default
destination for Reply is some address on the message,
but Forward has no sensible default.  So in the Forward
implementation just posted, you provide an address with a
click argument.  If you invoke Reply with the same click
argument, the only difference twixt the two is the subject line!

And if you don't give an argument, it's just not that hard
to type one more keystroke -- ^U -- before typing in the
new address.  Either way, they're very similar.

Russ

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Russ Cox]

> 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

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Rob Pike]

> Aha... that is why Undo was also added to the tag line.

for those of us with smaller screens, that's just too much.
the tag is there to hold important things plus scratch text.
if you put everything you might want there, it reduces the
usefulness.

-rob

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Skip Tavakkolian]

> perhaps '>spell' but even that isn't useful enough to occupy
> permanent tag space.

You don't know how bad I can spell ☺

I'm not sure where the '>spell' output is supposed to be going? can't
see any of the output. 

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Skip Tavakkolian]

> that throws away your buffer.

Aha... that is why Undo was also added to the tag line.

Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail

[rob pike, esq.]

surely you don't mean '|spell'; that throws away your buffer.
perhaps '>spell' but even that isn't useful enough to occupy
permanent tag space.

-rob

[9fans] Forward option for Mail

[Skip Tavakkolian]

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.

If you mark something that looks like an email address (has an '@' in
it) and middle-left-click on Forward, it creates the new Forward
buffer with that address in the To line; otherwise the To line will be
blank.  Another minor thing was adding the |spell in the tag line.

diff /n/dump/2003/1207/acme/mail/src/dat.h /acme/mail/src/dat.h
diff /n/dump/2003/1207/acme/mail/src/html.c /acme/mail/src/html.c
diff /n/dump/2003/1207/acme/mail/src/mail.c /acme/mail/src/mail.c
diff /n/dump/2003/1207/acme/mail/src/mesg.c /acme/mail/src/mesg.c
642a643,647
> 	if (strcmp(args[0], "Forward") == 0) {
> 		char *to = (nargs >= 2 && strchr(args[1], '@')) ? args[1] : nil;
> 		mkreply(m, "Forward", to, nil, nil);
> 		goto Return;
> 	}
1233c1238
< 				wintagwrite(m->w, "Q Reply all UnDelmesg Save ", 2+6+4+10+5);
---
> 				wintagwrite(m->w, "Q Reply all Forward UnDelmesg Save ", 2+6+4+8+10+5);
1235c1240
< 				wintagwrite(m->w, "Q Reply all Delmesg Save ", 2+6+4+8+5);
---
> 				wintagwrite(m->w, "Q Reply all Forward Delmesg Save ", 2+6+4+8+8+5);
diff /n/dump/2003/1207/acme/mail/src/reply.c /acme/mail/src/reply.c
74c74
< 	int quotereply;
---
> 	int quotereply, fwdreply;
77a78
> 	fwdreply = (strcmp(label, "Forward") == 0);
93c94
< 	wintagwrite(r->w, "|fmt Post", 5+4);
---
> 	wintagwrite(r->w, "|spell |fmt Undo Post", 7+5+5+4);
97c98
< 	if(to!=nil && to[0]!='\0')
---
> 	if(to!=nil && to[0]!='\0' && !fwdreply)
104c105,109
< 		if(to == nil && attr == nil){
---
> 		if (fwdreply) {
> 			Bprint(r->w->body, "To: %s\n", to ? to: "");
> 			quotereply = 0;	/* force inclusion of the whole message */
> 		}
> 		else if(to == nil && attr == nil){
118,119c123,124
< 			t = "Subject: Re: ";
< 			if(strlen(m->subject) >= 3)
---
> 			t = (fwdreply) ? "Subject: Fwd: " : "Subject: Re: ";
> 			if(!fwdreply && strlen(m->subject) >= 3)
diff /n/dump/2003/1207/acme/mail/src/util.c /acme/mail/src/util.c
diff /n/dump/2003/1207/acme/mail/src/win.c /acme/mail/src/win.c