Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!ames!pacbell!dsinc!syd
From: syd@dsinc.DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: New Elm behavior
Summary: follow up on discussion - and a need to resolve the problem
Message-ID: <137@dsinc.DSI.COM>
Date: 27 May 89 16:43:41 GMT
References: <133@dsinc.DSI.COM>
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc., Huntingdon Valley, PA
Lines: 68

Ok, we have another full blown feature problem here, where a bug being
fixed will break another user appearance.  I cannot predict these in
advance, no matter how much you say  ... but it changes the appearance,
after all, any bug fix thats not totally internal changes the appearance.

So for the moment, if you don't like the changes in patch 8, back them
out and wait out the discussion.  For those of you that wondered why
I even posted that patch (and remember, I post but do not write them)
here is part of the message I sent to the elm development group today
in re solving this problem:

The signature problem is a three part problem.
Here are the three parts, and remember that the patch solved two of
them, but caused people to be upset and end up with a third.

Ok.
1.  Signatures were being confused as to local/remote.

    The code checks to see if the address has you domain name in it
    and uses local, else it uses remote.  The patch fixed this.

2.  One cannot reliably decide if an address is local or remote until
after the message is complete due to allowing header changes to make
a local address remote.

    The patch fixed this one.  However this caused part of the problem
    with seeing the signature in the editor buffer.

3.  And the major item on the bug list this patch fixed:  If you use
signatures you cannot use the built-in editor.

    By delaying the signature code we can use the builtin editor.


Ok, just backing out patch 8 will return the old behavoir, but it will
not solve the items on the bug list.  So I ask.... how does the group
desire to solve number 3.

After all, if you have a sig file and you use the built in editor,
you cannot use the built in editor and are forced to your default
external editor.

This is also a major problem.  I am open to solutions.

Thus we have the mixed goal of fixing the problems on the bug list,
and in my mind (and remember thats personal opinion), this patch
did just that, fix the items on the bug list.

Also, remember, this is 2.2 patches, so grandious solutions with new
features such as a list of sites considered local will be taken
as suggestions for 2.3, not as a way to fix 2.2.  The fix to 2.2 has
to be simple minded and solve the bugs, but not make major changes.
(Thus rewriting the internal editor is out for a fix to 2.2).

One possible solution is just to document that if you want signatures
you cannot use the built-in editor, but that disenfrancises a large
body of users that use the built-in editor.

So, here is a full blown item to discuss, as we also will be doing so
on the development group.  I will hold off patch 9 until a solution is
reached, thus if you back out patch 8, you won't miss anything.


-- 
=====================================================================
Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP                   Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.				Voice: (215) 947-9900
syd@DSI.COM or {bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd	        FAX:   (215) 938-0235