On Saturday,  7. April 2001 21:49, Marc Mutz wrote:
>
> > And the name of a filter rule can now be edited. I still don't see a =
real
> > purpose of this feature.
>
> Well, I have quite a few rules in my netscape filter dialog and I
> personally like to name them after the ml or the person they filter on.

At least I think, that the automatic naming does the job very well and I=20
consider it unneccessary time wasting, if I have to invent a name for eve=
ry=20
filter rule now, only because a few users absulutely want their own names=
=2E=20
And I have a lot of filter rules. Only because Netscape allows naming of=20
filter rules is for me no argument, that this feature is also required in=
=20
KMail. If you really want to allow changing the name, then the automatic=20
naming should still work, as long the user does not change the name manua=
lly.
Also I think, I'm not the only one with this opinion on this list, as thi=
s=20
issue was discussed some months ago.

> > Also, at least the way it currently works I cosider it a bad design,
> > because if I first define a rule "From contains John@Doe.com" and the=
n
> > change it to "From contains John.Doe@gmx.net" the name of the rule is
> > still
> > "<From>:John@Doe.com" which is surely more confusing than before.
>
> I see the point. But I think that one should not invest too much into
> backwards-compatibility. I think with proper labelling (still to come)
> the user will be well aware that it's now up to him to name the filters=
=2E
> The more so as for the normal user this change will arrive with other
> changes (e.g. IMAP).

At least I am of a different opinion here. Backwards compatibility is ver=
y=20
important and if there is no really very good reason to break it, it shou=
ld=20
be kept. At least if it should come at a point, where all upgrading users=
=20
will loose their filter rule configuration and have to define them again,=
 I=20
consider that change unacceptable.

And as you mention IMAP, it has already arrived in CVS and there is no=20
backwards incompatible change. Not even a single new menu item was invent=
ed=20
for that. Users that don't use IMAP only see a new third option in the=20
account configuration which leads to a new dialog.

=46rom your screenshot, I think, the layout is good, the same more and fe=
wer=20
buttons should then be there for the action, I guess. If you are unsure, =
how=20
to do something, a screenshot is probably really better than a patch in t=
his=20
case.

Regards,
Michael H=E4ckel

_______________________________________________
Kmail Developers mailing list
Kmail@master.kde.org
http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail