Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!HDEDH1!NADWL From: NADWL@HDEDH1.BITNET (Scott Ophof) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook Subject: Re: Proposals for yet another version of MAIL/BOOK Message-ID: Date: 16 Jan 90 23:57:54 GMT Sender: MAIL/MAILBOOK subscription list Reply-To: MAIL/MAILBOOK subscription list Lines: 47 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 12 Jan 90 14:06:31 CET from On Fri, 12 Jan 90 14:06:31 CET Rainer M Woitok said: >Yesterday I installed 89-02-0A and was really impressed by the various >enhancements and by the performance improvements achieved by using >these index files. ... He done said a GOOD thing there! (as he usually does) >... >4. New sorting column STATUS (or similar) > Since I can now sort according to multiple columns, I'd like also to > be able to sort according to the status field, where either ' ' (old > mail), '>' (new mail) or '-' (mail to be discarded) is displayed. > Thus I could cleanly separate old from new mail. I have a REXX file (MAILSYNS XEDIT) to do that kind of things, like PRFON, which sets up the prefix area the way I want it. A SELECTD synonym for some code to pick up the column of "date:" on the first line of the menu, from which it can calculate the position of " ", ">", and "-", and then selectively display only the rest should then turn out to be a "trivial"(?) coding exercise, methinks... >5. Editing the header part > This topic has already been discussed here, but I'd like to add my > two cents: Since I'm working in a fullscreen environment, I'd like > to make changes to the subject line by simply typing over it, > without having to use a (line mode) SUBJECT command. Similarly I'd >... I second the motion. But what happens if Unsmart Normaluser by accident overtypes a header line, and doesn't remember what it was supposed to be? >9. Just for fun >... > Barry Hathaway 1/11/90*PROFS acknowledgements and reo > Richard A. Schafer 1/11/90 PROFS acknowledgements and reo > I checked the time stamps: Richard's was 13:13:57 CST, which is > 19:13:57 UT and Barry's was 15:08:51 EDT which is 19:08:51 UT. So > the software was correct: Fast-As-Lightning-Barry responded roughly > five minutes before Richard asked. Somebody's system TIME CLOCK set a "bit" wrong? Regards. Scott/