On 04/15/2011 10:45:40 AM Fri, Jack wrote:
On 2011.04.15 00:08, Ildar Mulyukov wrote:[abusive content] I just hate digest replies [/abusive content] IIRC digests are letters with other letters as attachments. What do you think of having those automatically extracted (in some way)? So that a user could answer a particular message, not the digest as a whole. Ideally I see it this way: a digest could appear as a tree root (like in a threading view) with messages as branches. What do you think? --Ildar, I do like the idea, but every digest I've seen is just a big text message, not a set of attachments. I never looked at the headers to see if there is any indication it IS a digest. For me, the main advantage would be the ease of replying to a single message in the digest, instead of having to manually trim all the other stuff. Jack
If the letters are attachments, you already have a rudimentary reply capability: right-click in the header box, and the pop-up menu gives you the option to reply (also to copy the individual message to a folder). Unfortunately, it's 'reply to sender', not 'reply to Group', so you'd have to copy&paste the list address (awkwardly, as noted elsewhere!). I don't recall how that reply option was implemented. Having more of the 'Message' menu options would be nice. But having all the attached messages in a virtual folder of some kind would be best! Parsing a single text part like Jack describes would be more of a challenge...
Attachment:
pgp6QNXPHa2DK.pgp
Description: PGP signature