Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!mrspoc!itkin
From: itkin@mrspoc.Transact.COM (Steven M. List)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Tagging...
Keywords: tags, behavior, elm
Message-ID: <1989Oct30.224932.925@mrspoc.Transact.COM>
Date: 30 Oct 89 22:49:32 GMT
References: <1169@ispi.UUCP> <440@hades.OZ> <9705@chinet.chi.il.us> <142@limbo.Intuitive.Com> <9737@chinet.chi.il.us> <6337@pbhyf.PacBell.COM>
Reply-To: itkin@guinan.Transact.COM
Organization: Transact Software, Inc.
Lines: 28

rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes:

>That's not a design issue, it's a requirements issue, i.e. you're dealing
>with the functionality from a user perspective.

>I think it's rather topsy-turvy to say, "Let's have a new command
>(tagging with replying) and then figure out what functionality we want
>to attach to it." Normally one asks for certain functionality (a/k/a
>requirements) and then designs it in.

>So let's begin again with this tagging issue: What functionality do we
>wish to add to ELM?

I agree with Rob's perspective.  I, personally, would like to have the
following functionality:

tag reply: tag a group of messages, include the text of ALL of them in
	the reply, optionally send the reply to all addressees/senders
tag forward: the same (auto-digest?)

I'm sure I (and others) will think of more.  This would be MY first
choice.
-- 
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 :                Steven List @ Transact Software, Inc. :^>~                  :
 :           Chairman, Unify User Group of Northern California                :
 :     {apple,coherent,limbo,mips,pyramid,ubvax}!itkin@guinan.Transact.COM    :