Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!okstate!drd!mark
From: mark@DRD.Com (Mark Lawrence)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Good Suggestion from Jonathan there!!!!
Summary: tag bounce seems obvious
Keywords: elm tag
Message-ID: <1989Oct3.173131.9413@DRD.Com>
Date: 3 Oct 89 17:31:31 GMT
References: <1169@ispi.UUCP> <440@hades.OZ> <9705@chinet.chi.il.us> <142@limbo.Intuitive.Com>
Reply-To: mark@drd.Com (Mark Lawrence)
Distribution: na
Organization: DRD Corporation, Tulsa, OK
Lines: 27

taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) wrote:
} Dave Ihnat comments that it would make sense to have "tag" be orthogonal for
} all 'reasonable' commands, including 'forwarding' 'bouncing', 'replying', &c.
} 
} Well, I'll tell ya, from my way of thinking, Elm *is* orthogonal with the
} tag command for all 'reasonable' commands...

*Bouncing* tagged messages seems reasonable to me.  As an administrator
(system and mailing list), I have occasion to bounce a mass of selected 
messages from a folder.  

I agree in principle with Dave's other comments about the semantics of
forwarding and replying.  I suppose one could make the argument for
tagging messages in order to designate addresses and then replying or
fowarding the message currently selected (the one currently being read
or where the cursor is currently positioned) and utilizing the text of
that message for the contents to be sent to the recipients designated by
the tagged messages.

Of course, that is just Dave's point.  The 'intuitive-ness' of the 
semantics of such an operation is fairly subjective.

I'd still like to register my desire for being able to bounce tagged
messages.
-- 
   mark@DRD.Com                (918) 743-3013              Jer. 9:23,24
   {uunet,rutgers}!drd!mark