Re: Red gnus feature request - user defined marks.

[abraham@dina.kvl.dk (Per Abrahamsen)]

>>>>> "LMI" == Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:

LMI> Well, nnbabyl could alter the group info to heed labels like
LMI> answered and read, I guess.  

It could also keep them updated (the same for the Status: header of
unix mbox files).

They could be used like this:

`M l <name> RET' add label <name> to current message.
`M u <name> RET' remove label <name> from current message.
`/ l <expr> RET' limit summary buffer according to <expr>.

<expr> would be a boolean expression on the labels, e.g. 

	`/ l bug & !fixed RET'

would show all the messages which are labeled `bug' but not labeled
`fixed'. 

One could also immagine the labels being used for highliting, or
affect the summary line format.

LMI> What I was thinking of was a more general
LMI> annotation functionality.  The user taps some key, enters a random
LMI> string -- "I've really got to think hard on this one", and this
LMI> annotation will then be presented in some way associated with the
LMI> message itself.

I could see how this could be useful.  Annotations could be indicated
with a special mark in the summary line.  The annotations themself
could be stored in a hierarchy similar to the `cache' hierarchy.  It
doesn't sound overly complicated. 

I'd would probably use this to store annotations like

	This was resolved by phone.  The luser had forgotten to plug
	in the monitor.