Re: [Pan-users] Another couple feature requests

[Jim Henderson]

gaw zay wrote:
> > ignored only if a bozo is involved.  Thus:
> >
> > If (thread contains message from "bozos") && !(thread contains message
> > from "Jim Henderson") then ignore thread
> 
> possibly illogical! if the bozo answers in the thread before you see it
> you won't have a chance to ever reply to it. if the bozo is one of those
> snooping the group 24/7 types (we have one troll like that now) you'll be
> wondering why there are no threads in that group!

<sigh>  That's what I get for taking a specific example and trying to
make it general.

What I'm going for is the ability to combine multiple filters using
logical operators - for whatever reason you might want to.

In my *specific* case, there's a group of us who answer questions of a
technical support nature.  If one of the other "SysOps" answers a
thread, I don't want to see it unless the other SysOp has responded
after I started.  IOW, I want to continue watching a thread I was
participating in already regardless of who's participating in it.

But if one of the others has replied to it, I don't ever want to see it.

I wanted to avoid a *specific* example because there's a lot of power in
the suggestion, and I didn't want it to be brushed off as "Jim's looking
for something that's useful to him and nobody else".  I believe the
ability to combine filters together in a logical manner (ie, using
and/or/not operators) would be of use in many, many more situations than
my specific situation.

This specific circumstance also prompted my second request, the ability
to create an arbitrary number of "special" lists of filters quickly and
easilly; if I want to ignore bozos, that's one thing, but I don't want
to lump the others in this group into a generic bozo or spam filter,
which I might use in a different manner; and since those lists are
maintained for the pan installation and not on a per-newsserver basis,
having overlap in the lists isn't particularly desirable.  I may find
someone on Usenet who I want to always ignore there and 'bozoize', but
in the support area, I can't do that (even though I might want to).

But don't focus on my specific needs - I'm suggesting enhancements that
are generic enough so as to be useful to the majority of users who use
rules; if the infrastructure is there, I can build rules to suit my
rather specialised needs.

Jim