Subject: Suggestion: blank subject header

From: Nancy McGough <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 13:28:25 -0400 (EDT)

* Right now when you reply to a message that has a blank Subject line,
  Pine produces the subject `Re: your mail'. How about having it be 
  `Re: your mail with no subject'.

* If I am about to send a message with no subject, I would like
  Pine to ask me if I really want to do that. E.g., when I type ^X, 
  I'd like Pine to say something like:

    Do you really want to send a message with no subject?

  And it would nice to let people have the option to turn off this 
  prompt.

Thanks for considering these,

-- 
For Pine info & links, see www.ii.com/internet/messaging/pine/
 
©Nancy McGough          http://www.ii.com          Infinite Ink
--= Sent via PINE: Power Internet News & Email for Win/Unix =--

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/pine/pine-info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Eduardo Chappa L." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 14:47:50 -0700 (PDT)

If you want that, maybe you may want to change the code by yourself. I
think it is personal preference if you want to write or not a subject. When
you send personal letters through the mail (the old fashion way, with
stamps), you don't write a subject outside of them, so this tells me
sometimes it is not necessary. In any case if you want to change the
message go to "reply.c" and change line 1285 to the "right message"

Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/personal.html

---

From: Bino Gopal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:47:19 -0400 (EDT)

I don't agree.  I think that it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion, and
one that the developers will consider and decide whether or not they want
to implement it.  The fact that it can be configurable is an even better
thing, as if you don't like it you don't have to use it.  This is very
useful b/c I know I've inadvertently forgotten the subject _many_ times
and would like such a reminder! Thanks Nancy!

							BINO

---

From: "Eduardo Chappa L." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:51:07 -0700 (PDT)

I would hate that Pine take the place of a mom and told me what to do. I
do hate when posting to a newsgroup already and pine complains about not
having written a subject. I do not find absolutely necessary a
configuration like that. Maybe someone will ask next for a message like
"Spelling not checked, check now?" or "Message contains only your
signature, send anyway?". I do not think this is necessary, not even to
configure. I would really hate this kind of behavior in Pine.

  I do not find the subject is the important part of the message. I am not
completely sure of this, but I suppose that you can use procamil to detect
messages that do not contain a subject and change them to whatever you
like, why do you need pine to be the police?

Eduardo

*** Bino  Gopal ([email-masked]) wrote on Jun 15, 1999:

:) I don't agree.  I think that it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion, and
:) one that the developers will consider and decide whether or not they want
:) to implement it.  The fact that it can be configurable is an even better
:) thing, as if you don't like it you don't have to use it.  This is very
:) useful b/c I know I've inadvertently forgotten the subject _many_ times
:) and would like such a reminder! Thanks Nancy!
:) 
:) 							BINO
:) 
:) 
:) On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Eduardo Chappa L. wrote:
:) 
:) > If you want that, maybe you may want to change the code by yourself. I
:) > think it is personal preference if you want to write or not a subject. When
:) > you send personal letters through the mail (the old fashion way, with
:) > stamps), you don't write a subject outside of them, so this tells me
:) > sometimes it is not necessary. In any case if you want to change the
:) > message go to "reply.c" and change line 1285 to the "right message"
:) > 
:) > Eduardo
:) > http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/personal.html
:) > 
:)

---

From: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:04:32 -0700 (PDT)

I agree that such nagging should not be the default behavior.  But I would
like to be able to configure Pine to automatically spell-check before
sending.  And I wouldn't mind some of those nagging things, although I
find the "Your message will be posted to thousands of people" quite
annoying.  That should be configurable, too.

-- 
Scott Leibrand
[email-masked]
How to contact me:
http://students.washington.edu/leibrand/howtocontactme.html
* RCW 19.190 notice: This email address is located in Washington State. *
* Unsolicited commercial email may be billed $500 per message.          *

---

From: Jessica Rasku <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:04:51 -0700 (PDT)

> like, why do you need pine to be the police?

	Hey, I have a problem with what is at least the default behaviour
when posting to a newsgroup.  Mind you, I've never really used Pine as a
newsreader (I don't know that it makes a good newsreader).  I agree that
these features shouldn't be imposed on us, but how many features are there
in Pine that MOST people don't use?  I know there are a great many I don't
use, but I still don't complain.  Sure, code what you want into Pine, but
if you don't want a feature you can just as easily go into the code and do
that yourself...

							Jessica

-- 
Jessica Rasku, Box 270, Rossland, B.C., V0G 1Y0, (250) 362-5701, 
LinuxBox: (250) 362-9668.

List manager: [email-masked] 
     send command help ---- To get help with majordomo
               or lists ---- To get a list of all lists on server.

WWW: <http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Andes/8749>

---

From: "Eduardo Chappa L." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:14:33 -0700 (PDT)

I know that checkspelling is a good idea before sending a message, so if
you are really thinking of adding this, please remember that there are some
people out there that needs to write e-mail messages in more than one
language, and it would be really annoying to have to either use the same
checkspeller for all messages or select the checkspeller on the fly (or
configure it with roles or nicknames or whatever method you decide. I do
not write all my messages to the same person in a unique language). I do
prefer the behavior that pine has today about spelling, but adding a
configurable spelling seems to be a good idea, though.

Eduardo

*** Scott Leibrand ([email-masked]) wrote Today:

:) I agree that such nagging should not be the default behavior.  But I would
:) like to be able to configure Pine to automatically spell-check before
:) sending.  And I wouldn't mind some of those nagging things, although I
:) find the "Your message will be posted to thousands of people" quite
:) annoying.  That should be configurable, too.
:) 
:) -- 
:) Scott Leibrand
:) [email-masked]
:) How to contact me:
:) http://students.washington.edu/leibrand/howtocontactme.html
:) * RCW 19.190 notice: This email address is located in Washington State. *
:) * Unsolicited commercial email may be billed $500 per message.          *
:) 
:) On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Eduardo Chappa L. wrote:
:) 
:) >   I would hate that Pine take the place of a mom and told me what to do. I
:) > do hate when posting to a newsgroup already and pine complains about not
:) > having written a subject. I do not find absolutely necessary a
:) > configuration like that. Maybe someone will ask next for a message like
:) > "Spelling not checked, check now?" or "Message contains only your
:) > signature, send anyway?". I do not think this is necessary, not even to
:) > configure. I would really hate this kind of behavior in Pine.
:) > 
:) >   I do not find the subject is the important part of the message. I am not
:) > completely sure of this, but I suppose that you can use procamil to detect
:) > messages that do not contain a subject and change them to whatever you
:) > like, why do you need pine to be the police?
:) > 
:) > Eduardo
:) > http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/personal.html
:) > 
:) > 
:) > *** Bino  Gopal ([email-masked]) wrote on Jun 15, 1999:
:) > 
:) > :) I don't agree.  I think that it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion, and
:) > :) one that the developers will consider and decide whether or not they wan
:) > :) to implement it.  The fact that it can be configurable is an even better
:) > :) thing, as if you don't like it you don't have to use it.  This is very
:) > :) useful b/c I know I've inadvertently forgotten the subject _many_ times
:) > :) and would like such a reminder! Thanks Nancy!
:) > :) 
:) > :) 							BINO
:) > :) 
:) > :) 
:) > :) On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Eduardo Chappa L. wrote:
:) > :) 
:) > :) > If you want that, maybe you may want to change the code by yourself. I
:) > :) > think it is personal preference if you want to write or not a subject.
:) > :) > you send personal letters through the mail (the old fashion way, with
:) > :) > stamps), you don't write a subject outside of them, so this tells me
:) > :) > sometimes it is not necessary. In any case if you want to change the
:) > :) > message go to "reply.c" and change line 1285 to the "right message"
:) > :) > 
:) > :) > Eduardo
:) > :) > http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/personal.html
:) > :) > 
:) > :) 
:) > 
:) > 
:) > 
:)

---

From: "Eduardo Chappa L." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:29:16 -0700 (PDT)

*** Jessica Rasku ([email-masked]) wrote Today:

:) On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Eduardo Chappa L. wrote:
:) 
:) >   I do not find the subject is the important part of the message. I am not
:) > completely sure of this, but I suppose that you can use procamil to detect
:) > messages that do not contain a subject and change them to whatever you
:) > like, why do you need pine to be the police?
:) 
:) 	Hey, I have a problem with what is at least the default behaviour
:) when posting to a newsgroup.  Mind you, I've never really used Pine as a
:) newsreader (I don't know that it makes a good newsreader).  I agree that
:) these features shouldn't be imposed on us, but how many features are there
:) in Pine that MOST people don't use?  I know there are a great many I don't
:) use, but I still don't complain.  Sure, code what you want into Pine, but
:) if you don't want a feature you can just as easily go into the code and do
:) that yourself...

  Thanks for supporting my point: hack the code for whatever you don't
like, which was my original point. The fact that "most" users don't use the
configuration (no statistics provided by you) does not mean that the rest
of us have to suffer unnecessary features. I'm sure all these must not be
difficult to add, but I already have to answer at least 3 questions before
I can reply to a message. I do not need pine to keep asking me or checking
on me.

Eduardo

---

From: Robert Larmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:44:56 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

I can think of one other spell-checking add-on that I would like - a
feature that would disable checking of anything that starts with http,
www, or has a @ in it.  Something like...

[X] Disable spell-checking of URL's
[X] Disable spell-checking of email addresses

I don't often spell check for that very reason - I hate skipping every
unique email name and URL, (While I'm wishing, I'd rather have a more
Windows/Eudora/Netscape-like GUI interface with all the same
functionality.)

Robert

> :) > :) > http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/personal.html

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
`			Robert Larmon				      `
`			PC Systems Analyst			      `
`			USC Law School Computing Services	      `
`			[email-masked]			      `
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

---

From: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:03:06 -0700 (PDT)

> if you don't want a feature you can just as easily go into the code and do

It's not always quite so simple to simply change the source code.
Especially if you use PC-Pine.  The source for that just isn't available.
So I like things configurable via .pinerc.

---

From: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:13:43 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Robert Larmon wrote:

> unique email name and URL.

Good idea.

> (While I'm wishing, I'd rather have a more

Then why even bother using Pine?

---

From: Robert Larmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:42:22 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

> Then why even bother using Pine?

Because it's free!!!  (and a darn good program too)  It also fits our
remote needs and is relatively maintenance free.

The reason I talk about a more GUI-like interface is that my users are
starting to ask why Pine is still using a UNIX-style (they say DOS)
interface for their office needs/wants.  I have a 40%/60% mix of users who
prefer GUI/functionality.  Unfortunately for me the 40% are the ones who
make the most noise.  I'd love to give them a more GUI-ized PC-Pine so
that they will be satisfied and I can still use and provide the product
that I prefer.

I can wish, can't I? :)  Sorry for the divergence.

Robert

---

From: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:41:20 -0700 (PDT)

> I can wish, can't I? :)  Sorry for the divergence.

That's ok.  I think Netscape and Outlook Express are starting to become
petty good e-mail programs to work with Pine when the user wants a
windows interface, though.

---

From: Jessica Rasku <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:46:34 -0700 (PDT)

> I can reply to a message. I do not need pine to keep asking me or checking

	Well, what I'm sugesting that *YOU* do, is not complain about
this, but instead hack the code if it REALLY bothers you that much.  I
very much was NOT supporting your view.  Your view is that we should not
have features.  So use mail.  Use, elm.  Use something without features
that you don't like.  Or even write your own mail package.  You could even
do it based on the Pine package if you wanted to.  Don't complain about
feature glut.  It runs NICELY on my 486/66.  It may not run so nicely on
something like an 8086, but those are incredibly rare (but not
non-existant), these days.  Provided the features can be turned on, or
off, through configuration, you SO FAR, are not suffering from excesive
features.  If you still feel like you are, then hack the code yourself,
don't ask the pine development team to do something for *you* that would
``disservice'' many of it's users.

							Jessica

---

From: Jessica Rasku <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:56:12 -0700 (PDT)

> So I like things configurable via .pinerc.

	Oh, I definately agree.  I was really just commenting on the
person who said ``hack the code if you want this feature, I don't want
it'', and saying that *he* could hack the code himself.  There IS no
source for PC-Pine?  Or is it just not easy to get (or is there a problem
with the ``hook'' into the tcp-ip stack?  I don't think that should be a
problem, but maybe...).

							Jessica

---

From: Jessica Rasku <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:12:03 -0700 (PDT)

> remote needs and is relatively maintenance free.

	Hm...  I'm not sure that this in itself is a good reason...  

> that they will be satisfied and I can still use and provide the product

	Then why can't you let them use something like Eudora?  Why must
they use Pine?  I LIKE pine, and I like that it is text mode.  I would
stick with the version that I was at, if it ever went gui.  Even if it
still provided a text mode.  I know that a lot of energy goes into
development of a GUI, and I don't want to see that energy taken away from
the general development of Pine.  

> I can wish, can't I? :)  Sorry for the divergence.

	You certianly can.  But I think you will find that the vast
majority of Pine users don't want a graphical version.  There are various
reasons, but that really doesn't matter...

							Jessica

---

From: Jessica Rasku <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:06:20 -0700 (PDT)

> configurable spelling seems to be a good idea, though.

	Here is a feature that I personaly would consider a feature glut.
Not, having the ability to do as you say above, configure the spell
checker as you wish.  But, to integrate a spell checker into pine.  I
know that people on a PC system, may not have a stand alone spell checker
(this sort of philosophy has to change in the PC world I think), but if
the pine development team wants to create a spell checker, make it
entirely stand alone.  I'm not sure if the message editor, (which I
understand is pico), is totaly stand alone, or if it is compiled into the
program, or how it works, but it is nice that pico is avalable stand
alone.  Even though I don't like Pico (it's fine for most of my message
writing though).

							Jessica

---

From: "Eduardo Chappa L." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:34:42 -0700 (PDT)

Oh Jessica,

  You are giving me a good laugh here, no ofense intended. I never asked
for the famous feature, i opposed it. I do not need to hack the code, I
want it to stay as it is. I guess you arrived late to this thread, so I
excuse you, I hope you excuse my laugh too.

Eduardo

:) On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Eduardo Chappa L. wrote:
:) 
:) >   Thanks for supporting my point: hack the code for whatever you don't
:) > like, which was my original point. The fact that "most" users don't use the
:) > configuration (no statistics provided by you) does not mean that the rest
:) > of us have to suffer unnecessary features. I'm sure all these must not be
:) > difficult to add, but I already have to answer at least 3 questions before
:) > I can reply to a message. I do not need pine to keep asking me or checking
:) > on me.
:) 
:) 	Well, what I'm sugesting that *YOU* do, is not complain about
:) this, but instead hack the code if it REALLY bothers you that much.  I
:) very much was NOT supporting your view.  Your view is that we should not
:) have features.  So use mail.  Use, elm.  Use something without features
:) that you don't like.  Or even write your own mail package.  You could even
:) do it based on the Pine package if you wanted to.  Don't complain about
:) feature glut.  It runs NICELY on my 486/66.  It may not run so nicely on
:) something like an 8086, but those are incredibly rare (but not
:) non-existant), these days.  Provided the features can be turned on, or
:) off, through configuration, you SO FAR, are not suffering from excesive
:) features.  If you still feel like you are, then hack the code yourself,
:) don't ask the pine development team to do something for *you* that would
:) ``disservice'' many of it's users.
:) 
:) 							Jessica
:) 
:) -- 
:) Jessica Rasku, Box 270, Rossland, B.C., V0G 1Y0, (250) 362-5701, 
:) LinuxBox: (250) 362-9668.
:) 
:) List manager: [email-masked] 
:)      send command help ---- To get help with majordomo
:)                or lists ---- To get a list of all lists on server.
:) 
:) WWW: <http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Andes/8749>
:) 
:)

---

From: Robert Larmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:00:43 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

> 	Hm...  I'm not sure that this in itself is a good reason...  

Jessica,

Thanks for your opinion, but since I'm the one that supports it at my
location, please allow me to make that decision.  Forgive me for not
stating that those were not the only reasons.  If you would like a
comprehensive list of why we use Pine, let me know privately and I will
supply you with a list.

> the general development of Pine.  

See my comment above.

> reasons, but that really doesn't matter...

Did you ever think about being able to give users a choice between a less
'homely' GUI PC-Pine vs the existing one?  That's why it's called a wish
list.  I would also like to point out that unless you can back up your
claim of what 'users don't want' with some serious statistics, it's
nothing more than just a claim.  Now if you said "'majority of Pine users'
on this list," I would agree emphatically.

My concern is that I would have to stop providing Pine to my users because
of aesthetic reasons.  If aesthetics didn't matter, then why do projects
like GNOME for Linux exist?  Yes, it adds more functionality, but if that
was all GNOME was about it too would look like PC-Pine or an old
X-Windows. Whether I personally like/dislike a better GUI is irrelevant -
it's about providing the best service to my users and part of that is the
aesthetics.  PC-Pine is a heck of a lot more popular here with it's
Windows integration and web viewing capabilities than regular Pine.  I see
a natural trend, in general for any product, to become more integrated
with the OS (Micro$loth makes a lot of $$$ off this concept), which means
in Pine's case that the GUI has to improve as well.

Pine may not be the best solution for us 2-3 years down the road, but I
sure would like it to be.  Features are definitely more important, but
that last 10-20% of aesthetics and refinement are important too.

If I err in this email please forgive me, but I don't think I should have
to defend my own opinions in the first place.

Robert

p.s.  If you (or anyone else) would like to discuss this topic further
with me, please feel free to email me personally off-list.  Otherwise I
consider this discussion closed.

---

From: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:37:18 -0700 (PDT)

Nope, there is no PC-specific source code for Pine 4.0 and above.  All I
remember is that it was because some of the code they used was copyrighted
by someone else.  Search comp.mail.pine at www.deja.com if you want to
read about it.

---

From: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:45:21 -0700 (PDT)

> alone.  Even though I don't like Pico (it's fine for most of my message

I agree 100%.  The PC-Pine spell-checker sucks compared to ispell.  But I
still think that Pine/Pico should be able to be configured to press ^T
before sending.  That way you could set up your dictionary to include
whatever languages you want.  Would that accomplish what you guys want?

---

From: Jessica Rasku <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:14:02 -0700 (PDT)

> excuse you, I hope you excuse my laugh too.

	You sugested that some features be removed.  If you feel that I
``came late'' I'd like to inform you that I've been on this list since
just prior to the release of 4.10 (I picked up the 4.05 source, and
subscribed at the same time, then when I started recieving messages from
the list, it was fairly quick that I was seeing messages about 4.10).
Your total missunderstanding, I don't really understand.  I have NEVER
sugested that you asked for any feature.  I in fact indicated that with
YOUR opposition to features, instead of sugesting to people who have
politely sugested that some features would be nice that they should hack
the code, you could more easily hack the code yourself if you are so
opposed to the features.  Or, create an entirely new mailer for yourself.

							Jessica