On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 08:40:54AM EST, David T-G wrote: > ...and then steVe said... > % just for clarity, are you suggesting that your address book will have > % a personalized sig entry for each entry in the db? i think that would be > % pretty nice, as you wouldn't have to muck around with mutt's alias > % file...(and tons of send-hooks) which can be hiddeously hard to manage. > % but you're basically re-implementing a send-hook, no? If that's the case, > % why stop with signatures? you can add a bunch of other things like > % character encoding, my_hdr's, etc etc... but then i guess you have to > % think, where do you draw the line between send-hook and address-book? > > You don't! :-) And I love all of these ideas and more; if I'm going to > implement a new contact manager then it had better be *really* worth it. Yup, I had some major reasons for implementing my own contact manager. I wanted something designed from the ground up to have a simple data format (real biggie), a highly extensible list of attributes (another real biggie - you wanna be reminded of a guy's BDay, for instance, no? Why not just store it right in your contact DB?), and an easy export path to arbitrary third-party apps (also kinda important - big pain spending years coding a stupid RC generator). In the process, I also achieved a relatively easy import path from some third-party apps (Mutt, for instance - where I didn't even have to rebind the create-alias function to get it to work sensibly - it works as-is right out of the box using an alias queue). I've also gotten a whole slew of other nifty features for free, but the three big reasons are _the_ reasons why I didn't go with a preexisting contact manager. I hope that cleared up any possible questions :-) - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgp38apeYFxlU.pgp
Description: PGP signature