"Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> rwithers12 at attbi.com wrote:
> > "Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Cool.  Serious users might want to try Filtering Celeste.  It extends 
> > > 
> > > 	http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/2091
> > > 
> > 
> > hmm, I'll have to take a peek, when time permits.   I really like the
> > filters, but the lack of categories bothers me.
> 
> 
> Categories are still there.  

Ok, I'm with you now.  The categories are still in the DB.

> Anyway, a difference is that you can now select multiple categories at
> the same time.  For example, I can select both "debian" and "squeak" to
> see issues about Squeak's license and Debian.

I'll have to see it.   I am only just getting use to the idea of filters
as the core mechanism to read my mail.  I think I like it, but still
miss the other idiom.

> Yes, having read and unread categories that are automatically maintained
> would be a nice addition.  It doesn't have to be a separate mechanism.

So I guess you really want them to be categories. :)   I suppose it
would be difficult to add data to the existing message headers in
Celeste DBs the world over.

> 
> Threading would be nice, but is a bit of work.

I'll bet.

> Maybe I wasn't clear on the suggestion.  You can save message rules
> underneath names -- that's what a named filter is.  There's simply no
> mechanism in there for moving those messages anywhere.

Ok, and I just found we can do this in the normal Celeste with custom
filters.  cool.

> 
> There are several issues with the auto-moving:
> 
> 	1. "move all" and "file all" are already pretty easy.
>
> 	2. You will also need some feedback on what messages were moved, which
> complicates the UI.

This was why I wanted an unread flag on the message (in the DB) so we
could emphasize it in the UI.

> 	3. You may want to be more selective in what you move; e.g., you may
> want to move only those messages which you have read, or which have a
> certain keyword in the subject.
> 
> 	4. Why move them anyway?  I read my mailing lists straight from the
> "new" category, and it works great.

Mmm,  Perhaps it works.  It takes being a very diligent email manager,
but I have that same issue in Outlook.  After going away for 5 days, the
old email can really stack up.  I'll keep going the way it is, and check
my feeling in a week or so.


> Hmm, if your image crashes while you are writing a message, it would get
> lost.  Also, if you restart an old image under Squeak3.2gamma, I don't
> know if the on-disk files will be reread.

No, they aren't, so there is one good fix to bring forward.

> > 1) save image, with Celeste open
> > 2) d/l msgs
> > 3) try to copy and my machine was freezing.  kill -9 the image
> > 4) restart the previously saved image
> > 5) save mailDB....loose msgs that are in the DB from 2, but not in
> > Celeste in my restarted image
> > 
> 
> Exactly.  In the latest Filtering Celeste, on step 4 you will notice a
> 10 second pause or so when you restart the image, as Celeste re-reads
> the index file and categories file.  This used to happen with the
> Celeste in the main image, but I don't know if it still works nowadays.
> 
> By the way, a more drastic measure is to run "compact and salvage".  

I did this.  It worked!   I found my lost mail or it found me,

> This gets painful as your mail database grows large, but it should be
> pretty fast if you haven't been using it very long.  This should recover
> all messages that have actually made it onto the disk; it might put some
> into .unclassified., however.

That's where I found them after the "compact and salvage".  Celeste is
awesome!

thanks for your help, Lex

cheers,
Rob