how to set priority of a msg?
Bill Northlich
priority of a msg, but I don't see a way to set the priority - of a msg
you have, or of an outgoing msg. ?? Thanks
Bill
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
did you look under Options?
--
Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon/46347-Peter_Potamus_Show.html
http://www.toonarific.com/show.php?s_search=Potamus&Button_Update=Search&show_id=2778
Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
only. Thanks
Bill Northlich
On 3/8/07 5:24 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
> Bill Northlich wrote:
>> You can inspect msgs for priority on receipt, and you can show the
>> priority of a msg, but I don't see a way to set the priority - of a
>> msg you have, or of an outgoing msg. ?? Thanks
>> Bill
>
> did you look under Options?
>
No. But, ah, where are they? Nothing in menu bar(s), nothing at
rt-click. ??? Thnx
/b
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
open up a composer window [click on write], and you should
see them listed under the Menu of Options, Priority.
Also, are you looking while in newsgroup node, or email
mode. Try clicking your email account.
Oh wait a minute. I see you're using a Mac. You didn't say
that in the first place. Now I have no idea where they are.
Maybe a Mac user can help you.
Chris Ilias
> You can inspect msgs for priority on receipt, and you can show the
> priority of a msg, but I don't see a way to set the priority - of a msg
> you have, or of an outgoing msg. ?? Thanks
http://ilias.ca/flashback/tb-priority.html
Priority can only be set while composing a message. It's the sender's
marking. To mark messages you have received, you can use the Tagging
feature.
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird
mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
(Please do not email me tech support questions)
Moz Champion (Dan)
> Bill Northlich wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/8/07 5:24 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>> Bill Northlich wrote:
>>>> You can inspect msgs for priority on receipt, and you can show the
>>>> priority of a msg, but I don't see a way to set the priority - of a
>>>> msg you have, or of an outgoing msg. ?? Thanks
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>> did you look under Options?
>>>
>>
>> No. But, ah, where are they? Nothing in menu bar(s), nothing at
>> rt-click. ??? Thnx
>> /b
>
> open up a composer window [click on write], and you should see them
> listed under the Menu of Options, Priority.
>
> Also, are you looking while in newsgroup node, or email mode. Try
> clicking your email account.
>
> Oh wait a minute. I see you're using a Mac. You didn't say that in the
> first place. Now I have no idea where they are. Maybe a Mac user can
> help you.
>
Peter
In this case it's the same
during composition
Options-->Priority--><choose>
You had it right
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
thanks for that info Dan
Bill Northlich
Bill
Bill Northlich
I guess the thinking is that priority should only be set for outgoing,
and for all msgs you have received, you should not be able to mess with
the priority since it was set by the sender.
Foo. That's silly imo. Thanks
Bill
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
I believe you already did. I'll repeat it. When you Compose
a message, look under Options, then under Priority
Bill Northlich
second, ... <thanks> for responding and sorry if I seemed to dis you in
my second msg.
Not being able to (re) set pri. on an incoming msg is a bit silly imo.
fwiw. Would tags and priorities lead to a several-faceted way of
categorizing msgs? Yes. Ideally, of course I should be able to set an
<arbitrary> tag on outgoing <or> incoming msgs. The receiver could
choose to look at the incoming ones or no. (That's another discussion
wherein I know that tb types don't agree with me, but many others do.
See eg www.indev.ca). For now we have two semi-tagging facilities. It
seems very arbitrary that tb allows me to manipulate one but not another.
I never display priority if I can avoid it because it's useless imo
unless I can manipulate it. What's important to you may not be to me.
Why would I want the "high" pri yelling at me while the msg is in my
purview?
While we are stuck with the separate pri and tag (at least) systems, let
us use them. It might be useful to have several priorities for a
particular tag. Sort of like hierarchical tags. What a concept.
Sorry for ranting
Bill
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> Not being able to (re) set pri. on an incoming msg is a bit silly imo.
> fwiw.
That's the way in which the mail system's been set up. Priority: is and
originator-set header and is considered an extension of RFC 822. The
recipient is not meant to manipulate these headers, since the ability to do
so would compromise the integrity of the entire e-mail system.
> Would tags and priorities lead to a several-faceted way of
> categorizing msgs? Yes. Ideally, of course I should be able to set an
> <arbitrary> tag on outgoing <or> incoming msgs.
Are we talking /tags/ or /headers/ here?
You can insert any arbitrary X-* header you want into a message; how the
recipient's MUA deals with it is another matter.
Similarly (although this depends on your in-coming SMTP access), you can
inject any arbitrary header you want at the SMTP level.
However, it sounds like you've conflated tags and headers. You can,
manually or by filter, associate an arbitrary tag with an in-coming e-mail,
but that tag exists purely at the user-level (and may or may not be
reflected in messages stored on an IMAP server).
> The receiver could
> choose to look at the incoming ones or no. (That's another discussion
> wherein I know that tb types don't agree with me, but many others do.
> See eg www.indev.ca).
I would assume that all MailTags is doing is manipulating metadata, and I
suspect that a lot of that metadata is simply local -- that is, if you were
to log on to your IMAP account on another machine, most of that data
wouldn't persist.
> For now we have two semi-tagging facilities. It
> seems very arbitrary that tb allows me to manipulate one but not another.
As indicated above, the header data is not intended to be arbitrarily
manipulated by the recipient.
I agree that Tb needs improved virtual folders and improved tagging
abilities; as for keywords (which are nice if a bit unnecessary), I believe
there is an add-on available that will do that.
> I never display priority if I can avoid it because it's useless imo
> unless I can manipulate it.
I haven't displayed it in years, and I suspect the number of occasions on
which I /set/ a priority on a message could be counted on the fingers of one
hand.
> What's important to you may not be to me.
Setting a Priority: doesn't affect the MTA at all; all it does is given an
indication of how important the originator thinks her or his message to be .
. . and, of course, there are those people who believe that even the
stupidest joke that they've forwarded is of the highest possible priority.
That said, Priority: is potentially useful in various businesses,
institutions, and organisations for internal communications . . . assuming
that there are agreed-upon circumstances and situations in which it is
appropriate to set a Priority:
> Why would I want the "high" pri yelling at me while the msg is in my
> purview?
Again, Priority: is an originator-set header. That's all.
> While we are stuck with the separate pri and tag (at least) systems, let
> us use them.
If you are aware of any app that allows you directly to manipulate headers,
I would be /very/ leery of it, 'cos it's likely that the people who wrote it
don't know bupkis (bubkis?) about e-mail.
But you might want to check the message source first: I suspect that you'll
find the original Priority: header there and that an X-* priority header of
some sort is being added and that if the latter is set, it is affecting
whatever is being displayed in the Priority column of the app.
> It might be useful to have several priorities for a
> particular tag. Sort of like hierarchical tags. What a concept.
That doesn't make much sense to me -- if I have a tag that is Important or
High, how many possible priorities need to be associated with it? -- , but I
have suggested that Tb's tagging abilities should allow for the association
of an arbitrary keystroke (that is not otherwise used) with a tag to try to
avert the limitations of the current system. That would allow users to use
tags as modifiers in order to qualify other tags.
Something like that, in combination with improved functionality for virtual
folders, would provide Tb users with a very powerful tool. . . .
> Sorry for ranting
Well, hopefully you've learnt something. :-)
<snip />
--
/b.
String quartets don't march very well.
--Donald Barthelme, /The Dead Father/