Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!wugate!uunet!mcsun!unido!pcsbst!cochise!mike
From: mike@cochise
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Good Suggestion from Jonathan there!!!!
Keywords: elm tag
Message-ID: <1082@pcsbst.UUCP>
Date: 4 Oct 89 12:54:34 GMT
References: <1169@ispi.UUCP> <440@hades.OZ> <9705@chinet.chi.il.us> <142@limbo.Intuitive.Com>
Sender: uusr@pcsbst.UUCP
Lines: 19

taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) writes:

->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...

[ some stuff deleted ...]

->It really seemed to be a can of worms at the time I added the 'tag' 
->capabilities, which is why tagging only affects local operations, including
->printing, saving to files, &c.

->	I would be interested in hearing more thoughts on this subject.

I agree with just about all that Dave Taylor says (writes ;-),
except that IMHO, local commands also includes in particular
piping messages to a command (I know, this is the third time I've
stated this;-). But, Dave, hav