Re: [Evolution] Bounce/remail command

["Jeffrey P. Lanza" <jpl alumni unh edu>]

On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Jamie Zawinski wrote:

> Jeffrey P. Lanza wrote:
> > I'll admit that everything you've said here is true, but it doesn't change
> > the fact that there are some situations in which one needs and wants a
> > resend command. 
>
> I disagree.
>
> > I use resend all the time to make transfers from one mail
> > account to another and I'm sure that others do the same.
>
> You could just as easily multi-select the messages you want to move,
> forward them, and then use "explode" on the receiving end.  I used to do
> that all the time when I was in such situations in the past.

I may be stubborn about what I prefer in a mail reader, but if you can
show me the goods I can be convinced.  Give me an example of a reader that
can take a group of messages, forward them, and explode them such that on
the other end, each message still has a "From" field that matches the
original sender.

> > If you're that fearful of people abusing the command, keep it hidden
> > unless explicitly enabled.
>
> I do not believe in the customizability cop-out.  

No, instead you believe that your way is the right way and that all who
disagree are out of luck.

> I don't care what obscure, random, expert-user commands are buried in
> the program in a not-discoverable-to-normal-real-world-users way.
> Implement what you like; build in elisp and let people write their own
> commands -- whatever.

Resend is not an obscure, random, expert-user command; it just happens to
be one that *you* don't like.

> I'm talking about how the program behaves out of the box.  

And I'm saying that if it doesn't behave like I want it to out of the box,
I want the freedom to change it without having to rewrite the source
myself.  At least with open-source software, I can do that if I can't
convince you now.

> If the program is not usable without turning on some preference or
> secret feature, then the program is buggy: if that happens, then that
> feature was actually needed, not just a bone thrown to the guru users.

Usable is a relative term.  What might be perfectly fine for others who
don't use resend will be miserable for me if I want it and can't find it.

> So talking about "expert mode" is completely uninteresting to me.
> If it makes you feel better to imagine a "resend" command the can only
> be enabled by editing some text file (that is, not in a preferences
> dialog, and not on a menu) then fine, we can stop talking about it,
> because in my opinion, such a command isn't even a part of the program
> at that point.

If I had to edit a text file to enable that option I would, but I'd prefer
to see it in a preferences dialog box.  Whether you consider resend to be
part of the program or not is irrelevant.  I'm saying that people use it
all the time and it should be there, whether or not you prefer it.

> However, if everybody's going to be turning on that command anyway,
> because the other commands are insufficient, then something's gone wrong
> with the design of the program.

I've never suggested that everyone was going to turn on that feature.  I
think it's one of those things that once you have it, you don't want to go
back to life without it.

> I do not want to be a recipient of "resend" messages.  I believe that
> every time I've gotten a "resend" message from some third party, it
> really should have been a "forward" message.  I want to see the UI
> designed such that people are led to using "forward" because that's the
> right thing.

Fine.  I believe I've already agreed that resend is easily abused and that
forward is a better option when redirecting messages to others.  But I
still use it for messages that I send from one account to another, and you
haven't proven to me that there's a better replacement.

> If you don't believe that, then we've got more arguing to do.

We're no longer arguing about whether resend or forward is better.  We're
now arguing about whether you will bother to make it available to those
who might want to use it.  If you won't make it available, then we've got
more arguing to do.

> > Wow!  I can't even begin to express how much I disagree with you here.
> > Mail readers that "help" people to do the right thing are terrible! 
>
> Uh, helping people do the right thing is the ENTIRE POINT of user
> interface design.  What the hell else do you think it's for?

Hmm...  Maybe that's why I don't use a GUI mail reader.  Not enough
features available because closed-minded developers decided ahead of time
what was best for me.

> Passing etiquette on by conditioning does not work.  Please take my word
> for this, as someone who has written a mail reader used by upwards of
> ten million newbies.  It.  Does.  Not. Work.  The *proper* things have
> to be the *easy* and *obvious* things.  If you don't understand that,
> you've got no business doing UI design -- go back to the command line.

I'll admit that my wishes are too idealistic for the reality of the
situation.  I suppose that proper etiquette no longer exists on the
Internet because it's gone way too mainstream.  This is deeply saddening
to me, but I guess I'll just have to deal with it.  But I digress...

Here's the bottom line for me:  I've got another account that I send
messages to when they contain jokes or URLs that I want to look at later.
When I send those messages to the other account I want two things:  One, I
don't want to change the "From" field.  Two, I want a fast and easy way to
resend the message.  (In Pine, I hit 'B', type the address alias, then hit
two carriage returns.)  If there's going to be a similar way to do this in
Evolution, great.  If not, I'm just asking that the capability be included.

-Jeffrey