[Ian Schorr <spamcontrol2@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Maybe. But I know some Ethereal users capture huge amounts of packets, in
> order to spot specific (sometimes periodic) errors which require the
> end-user to process this data over and over, to follow a TCP stram and then
> mark all filtered frames etc, to obtain a list of marked frames where you
> *think* the problem occurs. Maybe there are erratic packets in between the
> marked ones, which are relevant too. In this specific situation, the "XXX
> between first and last marked packet" option really makes sense.
>
>  
I suppose I could be one of those users, though I've never really 
thought about a need for "first and last marked packet" (I've always 
wanted to simply mark a range or specific set, either before or after 
applying a filter (such as following a stream)).  Even in this case I 
can fairly easily find the first and/or last marked frames 
after-the-fact by "finding" frame.marked, though I understand that this 
is a potentially somewhat slower solution.  I'm just not sure that the 
trade-off in UI complexity/intuitiveness is worth it.  Like you said, 
though, it's all a matter of personal opinion.

Of course, the continuing performance enhancements should make 
reprocessing much faster anyway, yes?  =)

Ian