"Jason R. Mastaler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tim Legant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I don't think that either whitelisting or releasing should imply the >> other, in the base TMDA code, but for a UI to combine the concepts >> into a single action is good. > > Agreed. So are you also implying that we need to modify the > presentation of the word ``whitelist'' to the user? i.e, use another > term instead?
I'm not sure that is as important as it seems to us (the developers). What I was saying is that, as a first step, we need to agree that whatever happens when the user chooses "Whitelist" (or another word) should be what they expect to happen, regardless of how it's implemented. That said, some of the communication between users and us, particularly in trouble-shooting scenarios, might be enhanced by a better word. "Accept" was suggested and seems reasonable. I have been trying to wear a user's hat when thinking about this and there seem to be three "positive" operations (ignoring blacklisting and deleting for now) that users might reasonably want to do. I list them in the order of most common to least common (based purely on my suspicions). * Accept all messages currently pending and all future messages from this sender. * Accept this message and all future messages from this sender. * Accept only this message from this sender. The first two obviously involve whitelisting (as we developers think of it) and the first requires some piece of code able to find and release any pending messages from a particular sender, however that's implemented. There are obviously other possible permutations but none of them seem useful in day to day use of TMDA and some are outright silly (accept all past messages from this sender but not this one or any in the future, and so forth). Tim _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
