From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Forward option for Mail From: "Skip Tavakkolian" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:26:10 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Topicbox-Message-UUID: a585e128-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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=20 > 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.' =E2=98= =BA