dwatts@ki.UUCP (Dan Watts) (08/04/90)
Is there a way to reply to a form without having to get into elm? What I'd like to be able to do is something like: % mail "using form 'x'" which would then let me reply to the form. I can preset the form so that it is always a specific number in my mailbox (currently, I have it as #1) to make it easier. If there isn't a way, then perhaps some future version could have this feature? Any pointers on where in the code I would want to look at to hack it in myself? -- ##################################################################### # CompuServe: >INTERNET:uunet.UU.NET!ki!dwatts Dan Watts # # UUCP : ...!uunet!ki!dwatts Ki Research, Inc. # ############### New Dimensions In Network Connectivity ##############
scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons) (08/05/90)
I've been silently following the discussion on forms with a great deal of interest. Forms would be quite useful in a lot of situations IF one could guarantee the recipient is using elm. No one seems to have mentioned that problem, so I'm going to assume the the sites which have a real interest in forms are requiring all their users to use 'elm'. That said, I absolutely agree the hardest part of forms is making them up and sending them. To date there's been only one suggestion with a specific proposal for how to use them, and that's simply not enough detail to build a feature set on. I see the following forms problems: 1. They're difficult to create; 2. They're difficult to send; 3. There's no forms libraries available, neither canned nor custom; 4. There's no well-defined way to access such libraries. These four questions need to be answered, and someone must be willing to step up and do the work. No one in the current development group has expressed much interest in forms (except me, and I'm already committed to another project). Anyone willing to step forward?