Subject: [BUG] seclection of messages.

From: Osman%Pine <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 06:24:03 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

If you select a number of messages using ";" and want to "Narrow" your
selection it unselects the previously selected ones and you end-up with
the ones which comply with your creterium you used to "Narrow".

This is realy broken!

The "Broaden" functionality works correct though...

TTYL.
-- 

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

---

From: Mike Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:33:54 -0500 (CDT)

> The "Broaden" functionality works correct though...

This is not true for me.  Both narrow and broaden work fine on Solaris
using the precompiled pine.  What OS are you using?

Mike

-- 
Michael B. Miller
University of Missouri--Columbia
http://taxa.psyc.missouri.edu/~mbmiller/

---

From: Jessica Rasku <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:08:11 -0700 (PDT)

> using the precompiled pine.  What OS are you using?

	Both work fine for me.  Work as expected.  Mine is the binarry
that I compiled myself, but I didn't do much but ``ussual'' things.  It
appears that he is using Linux, as I am...  Wierd it wouldn't work as
expected...

							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: Osman%Pine <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 08:41:06 +0200 (CEST)

> using the precompiled pine.  What OS are you using?

I'm using linux RedHat 6+ with pine 4.10 as distributed in
"pine-4.10-2.i386.rpm" that's the version which comes on the regular CD.

TTYL.
-- 
               I believe the technical term is "Oops!"

---

From: Gerhard Siegesmund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 20:09:27 +0200 (CEST)

Hello

I don't know if this is a bug, or whether it is new. I am using pine 4.10
and there seems there are { and } missing in the function 
mt_srch_mime_type ()
in the file mailcap.c.
----------------
...
if(!rv)
{ missing here?
#ifdef _WINDOWS
...
#endif
} missing here?
return(rv);
...
----------------
The problem was, that pine told me correctly the mime-type of *.wav-Files
to be sound/x-wav, but nevertheless sent them as application/octet. I took
some looks into the source-code. It is rather funny. The first time the
function is called it works without problems, so pine tells me correctly
sound/x-wav. But the second time get_mime_time_by_extension is called, it
doesn't find the right mime-type. Maybe someone who nows the code could
take a look at it. After inserting the brackets (which really seem to lack
 at that position) everything seems to work alright. I am using here Linux
2.2.9 and egcs 1.1.3 (gcc --version tells me egcs-2.91.66).

---
cu
  --== Jerri ==--
Homepage:       http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~siegesm/
finger [email-masked] to get PGP Public Key
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/pine/pine-info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: David Dyck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:32:42 -0700 (PDT)

If you are using Linux, then _WINDOWS should not be defined.
(Compilers that target Microsoft Windows applications define _WINDOWS)
If _WINDOWS is not defined, then adding braces should
not change the functionality of the program.

What else changed?

On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Gerhard Siegesmund wrote:

>  I am using here Linux

---

From: Robert Brady <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 19:57:47 +0100 (GMT)

> not change the functionality of the program.

Please examine the example code very carefully. This is a tricky area.
The problem is that the code is of the form :

if (a)
#if SOMETHING
  statement;
#endif
return foo;

Therefore, if SOMETHING is not defined, 

if (a)
  return foo;

will happen. This does not seem to be the desired effect. Either adding
the braces, or changing it to be

#if SOMETHING
if (a)
  statement;
#endif

will work.

-- 
Robert

---

From: David Dyck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:35:36 -0700 (PDT)

oops, 
  I misunderstood what you said

If the makefile had set enabled compiler warnings
 with -W

the following warning would have been issued:
mailcap.c: In function `mt_srch_mime_type':
mailcap.c:1131: warning: this function may return with or without a value

Even more warnings are spit out by gcc if -Wall is added

I thought everyone used -W...

---

From: Bino Gopal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 12:11:40 -0400 (EDT)

Well, this isn't a bug though more of a feture request:

Is it possible, in the 'Narrow' function, to allow selection of 'NOT'
things?  I want to be able to select messages from a mailing list, and
then pick the ones that DON'T have 'router' in the subject.  This would be
a REALLY, TRULY, useful feature!  If this example doesn't convince you,
see the more detailed one below.

To explicate, what I mean is, if I have a group of messages selected
'From' some mailing list, and I want to get the messages that were not
'Cc:'ed to another mailing list, the only thing I could do at that point
would be to select messages that _were_ cc:'ed to that mailing list, and I
lose the whole point of the exercise; i.e. the messages that I want get
unselected and tossed back into the general pool of thousands of
messages...  Now I could go the roundabout way and select all the messages
that I don't want, and then do a select flip, but unfortunately, sometimes
the interesections of the sets overlap, and I'm still screwed...

*sigh*  This would be so much easier with Venn diagrams, but they're not
easy enough to do in ASCII to be worth it.  Does anyone else see what I'm
saying and the usefulness of being able to narrow to messages that don't
match a certain criteria in your selected set?  Please say yes! :)

							BINO

P.S.  Osman, my 'narrow' works as advertised too.  Solaris V, on an
Ultra-60 with Pine 4.10...  

P.P.S.  Btw, just to be clear, are you saying that it _completely_
unselects the previously selected set, and then selects messages that
would not have matched the previous select criteria when you do the second
Narrow selection (i.e. using the whole index, not your smaller, selected
set)?! That would be indeed be *very* weird...

---

From: Mike Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:58:39 -0500 (CDT)

On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Bino  Gopal wrote:

> then pick the ones that DON'T have 'router' in the subject.  This
> would be a REALLY, TRULY, useful feature!  If this example doesn't
> convince you, see the more detailed one below.

Pine actually has a minimal sort of NOT facility.  You can search for all
messages in the folder containing 'router' in the subject, then use ";f"
to 'flip' from what you've selected to what you have not selected.  Thus,
the ";f" will give you all messages that do NOT contain 'router' in the
subject.

That said, I agree fully.  I'd like to be able to do other things like
limit a search to the body of the message, etc.  Pine is great and I
really love it.  That's why I ask for more--I want to do everything with
Pine.

Mike

---

From: Bino Gopal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 13:34:50 -0400 (EDT)

> really love it.  That's why I ask for more--I want to do everything with

Yep, know all about the flip; it's saved my life on many an occasion, but
unfortunately, with multiple intersecting sets, it just doesn't cut the
mustard (if you're one or two levels down).  What if you need to select
messages from a certain list, then find the ones that don't have router in
them?--then if you flip, and you get all the messages that aren't from
that list too, etc.

And there is a NOT--you can select NOT <status>, but not NOT
<text>...didn't realize that there was no NOT <text>--would it be that
hard to hard?  I mean, how about the inverse of Narrow, something like
'Wean', where you give it a criteria, and for messages that match that
criteria in a selected set, it tosses out those messages, instead of
keeping them as Narrow does?  You know, it should really be called 'Narrow
To' if you do that...

And I have to agree with your agreeing with me Mike--I love Pine too--I
just want it to do more! *grin*

Btw, in case it hasn't been said recently, BIG THANKS to the Pine team for
all the hard work and effort they put into a great program!  You guys have
done a great job; it's just that some of us out here want to eat our cake
too! ;)  Keep up the good work!

							BINO

---

From: Mike Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 12:41:24 -0500 (CDT)

On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Bino  Gopal wrote:

> Yep, know all about the flip; it's saved my life on many an occasion,
> but unfortunately, with multiple intersecting sets, it just doesn't
> cut the mustard (if you're one or two levels down).  What if you need
> to select messages from a certain list, then find the ones that don't
> have router in them?--then if you flip, and you get all the messages
> that aren't from that list too, etc.

Believe me, I agree with you.  But there is a way to deal with it--not
pretty, but it works.  After you do the flip, do Apply, Save and save to a
new folder name.  Then go to that folder and do the next select operation.

> hard to hard?

Very good point.  I think we need this feature.

> And I have to agree with your agreeing with me Mike--I love Pine
> too--I just want it to do more! *grin*

I guess we're all together on this one.  The pine development team would
not exist if they didn't want to make Pine better!

Mike

-- 
Michael B. Miller, M.S., Ph.D., M.P.E.
Department of Psychology
210 McAlester Hall
University of Missouri--Columbia
Columbia, MO 65211
 Phone: (573) 882-5671
   Fax: (573) 882-7710
e-mail: [email-masked]
   web: http://taxa.psyc.missouri.edu/~mbmiller/

---

From: Bino Gopal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:36:16 -0400 (EDT)

ARGH!  I didn't even want to _mention_ that possibility! *shudder* The
thought crossed my mind, and it was promptly deleted, as do you have any
idea how long that process would take on a folder of 10,000 messages?!
And what happens when you have a select two or three levels down?  No
thank you!--'not pretty' is a bit of an understatement, no? *grin*

							BINO

---

From: Freda B Birnbaum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:19:47 -0400 (EDT)

> them?--then if you flip, and you get all the messages that aren't from

How about SAVE-ing all the narrowed-down messages to a folder, getting
into the folder, and then selecting/narrowing from within that folder?

> keeping them as Narrow does?  You know, it should really be called 'Narrow

Hmmm, did you mean "weed" for "wean"?

> too! ;)  Keep up the good work!

Second the motion!  I like it even better than I used to like VMS mail...
(showing my age, I know...)

Freda Birnbaum, [email-masked]
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks"

---

From: Bino Gopal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 17:09:33 -0400 (EDT)

> into the folder, and then selecting/narrowing from within that folder?

Heh, Mike already suggested that and I give the same reply that I gave to
him:  AHHHHHhhhh! *running away screaming* ;)

> Hmmm, did you mean "weed" for "wean"?

Eh, oops, hehe yeah--thanks for the correction.  Definitely not Wean, and
yeah, Weed works pretty well--toss out the weeds, no? *grin*

> Freda Birnbaum, [email-masked]

All I have to say to VMSmail is "Ow!" :P

							BINO

---

From: "Eduardo Chappa L." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:47:01 -0700 (PDT)

*** Bino  Gopal ([email-masked]) wrote on Sep 20, 1999:

:) Well, this isn't a bug though more of a feture request:
:) 
:) Is it possible, in the 'Narrow' function, to allow selection of 'NOT'
:) things?  I want to be able to select messages from a mailing list, and
:) then pick the ones that DON'T have 'router' in the subject.  This would be
:) a REALLY, TRULY, useful feature!  If this example doesn't convince you,
:) see the more detailed one below.

I wrote a patch for doing something very similar to this for *local
folders*, you can select messages according to not containing a specific
text (not "not containig a header", but I suppose that should be easy
after this). The patch does not work for incoming folders as I still have
to figure out how to talk to the server to do this (Anyone can explain
this to me?, I am up to the point that I do not understand yet where the
selection is done, I think I can send the correct program to the server
though).

Anyway, if this is useful for you, pick the patch from the address below
and let me know if you find any bug.

Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine