Subject: Re: How to defeat posting prompt?

From: "Steven D. Majewski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 22:39:57 GMT

On 21 Nov 1994, David S. Eitelbach wrote:

> True, but it _is_ the program's fault if the feature cannot be toggled 
> and/or the default be switched to the more conservative one.

	[ ... ] 

> But we don't want you to make it *impossible*. All we want is you to 
> change the default, or, better, let the user be able to toggle it off.
 
	[ ... ]
 
> Right, but why not let the user be able to toggle it off and default
> to the way it was in 3.89?  So many toggles seemed to have been added
> to the configuration setup screen in the new version, I can't believe
> one more would hurt.

OK - *I'm* not irrevocably opposed to toggles in the config file. 
As you said: I can't believe one more would hurt. 
If you're not getting a reasonable hearing from the Pine team ( or
from other folks like myself who jump in to defend them ) it may be
because all of the previous threads on this subject have made everyone
a little defensive and combative. i.e. it's gotten into name calling
about whose software is "broken" and not how to best deal with the
problem. 

 But I do strongly resist labeling it as a "Pine problem". 

 As I noted in that discussion, I have some alpha WWW gateway code that
will inevitably run into the same problem - it will typically be taking
messages from a public-archive of messages, but there is no unambiguous
way for the program to know whether it is a public archive or a store 
of private messages. If I add the capability to respond to messages 
( which it doesn't currently have ) I will have to do basically the same
thing - and it's unlikely ( because of the stateless nature of HTTP )
that this will be user configurable. In fact, because of the round trip
overhead of asking for confirmation, it's unlikely to be as insistent 
as Pine about "are you sure..." 
  
 I think increasing mail/news and other message integration is an 
inevitable trend. 

 Todays issue of Network World has an article headed: 

	"Universal in-boxes await more standards.
	Vendors working together to link voice, E-mail, fax, EDI into 
	one interface."

This article is not discussing IETF standards, but Electronic Messaging
Association standards, however, whatever they come up with, the internet
will probably have to deal with in some manner. 

The internet is bigger than usenet news, and it is going to have to
deal with a wider range of integration problems than this one. 

-- Steve Majewski       (804-982-0831)      <[email-masked]> --
-- UVA Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics --
-- Box 449 Health Science Center        Charlottesville,VA 22908 --

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 94 03:53:16 -0800

> If "Newsgroups:" is present it assumes you were shouted at and, when you 
> start a reply, offers you the chance to shout back.

This is wrong.  As I mentioned before in comp.mail.headers,
it is established behavior for news readers to include a
Newsgroups: header when one sends private email in response to
a Usenet posting.  The Newsgroups: header tells the recipient
where the original posting was to which a private reply is
being sent.

More importantly, it makes little sense to assume that somebody who
sends you private email in response to a Usenet posting wants you to
post a public response.  If he had wanted a public discussion he would
have posted a follow-up in the original newsgroup instead of sending
private email.

I am now beginning to understand the pine model of a public discussion,
and I don't like it one bit.

Usenet model, assuming some hypothetical sequence of postings:

     A posts to a Usenet newsgroup.
     B sees posting, posts a follow-up.
     C sees A's and B's postings, posts a follow-up to A's posting.
     A sees C's follow-up, posts a follow-up of his own.
     B sees A's follow-up, posts a follow-up of his own.

Corresponding sequence in the pine model, which I now realize is much
more broken than I thought at first:

     A posts to Usenet newsgroup.
     B sees posting, sends A email and also posts a copy to Usenet.
     C sees A's posting and posted copy of email that B sent to A.
       C sends email to A and also posts a copy to Usenet.
     A gets email from C, sends reply to C, and also posts a copy to
       Usenet.
     B see's copy of A's email to C which was posted on Usenet, and
       sends an email reply to A and posts a copy on Usenet.

If you had a slight bit of trouble following the second sequence,
you may be getting my point.

I hope you observe the complexity of the pine model as I understand it,
the unnecessary duplications, and the cause for confusion between what
is private email and what is not.  It's as if a lot of people are
carrying on a public discussion by alternating whispering to one
another and repeating loudly what they just whispered.

With all due respect to the pine authors:  You did a great job of
writing some of the best email software around, but you are applying to
it a badly broken model of how public discussion should take place.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>