🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Apr13.182140.3265@vicom.com> lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) writes:
} In article <6572@ur-cc.UUCP> Mark Sirota <msir@cc.rochester.edu> writes:
} =How about ~R!, which would inhibit this message from being recorded in the
} ="record" folder?

How about:

	cmd R  'set record=+record'
	cmd R! 'unset record; echo "Not recording message"'
	map! ~R ~:R

and also possibly:

	cmd mail 'R;\mail'

(Yeah, R is normally "replyall"; choose some other letter ...)

You can do lots of stuff with this sort of thing:

	cmd V 'set verbose'
	cmd V! 'unset verbose'
	map! ~V ~:V

You get the idea ....

} That's a good idea, but an even better idea (IMHO) was a way to partially
} inhibit the save.  Elm provides this via an inline control line (it also
} provides encryption this way).
} 
} Last time I suggested this, Bart and Dan both expressed their displeasure
} with the Elm scheme.

And I'm expressing it again.  What we *do* intend to provide is a way
to specify patterns to a command similar to the current "pipe" command,
to allow selective filtering ala (/start/,/end/) in awk or sed.  Once
that's working, we'll probably add a way to pass outgoing mail through
such a thing, to get encryption and so on.
-- 
Bart Schaefer          "EARTH: Surrender IMMEDIATELY or we PICKLE DAN QUAYLE"

                                                                    "THPPFT!"
schaefer@cse.ogi.edu (used to be cse.ogc.edu)