[el_lobo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:32:08 -0800, you wrote:

>
>On Jan 23, 2004, at 4:31 PM, el_lobo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:15:29 -0800, you wrote:
>>> However, from your experience, I'm not convinced that it's really
>>> helping, given that, if you're going to enter your own filter, you 
>>> have
>>> to clear the filter expression (regardless of whether you just type an
>>> expression in there or construct the expression using "Add
>>> Expression"), and given that "name" isn't a very meaningful filter 
>>> name
>>> (and you can't have more than one filter with a particular name).
>>
>> You're right - what threw me for a while was that the default name of
>> 'filter' within the string field was just being appended to, whereas I
>> thought that it was referring to a predefined filter for the
>> particular protocol type. I think that the fields either need to be
>> left blank, or the first use of 'Add Expression' needs to clear the
>> string field.
>
>Yes, I agree.  Any votes on which of those two it should do?
>

My vote would go for just leaving the fields blank - its apparent then
that something needs to be added, and hopefully the 'Add Expression'
capability will work correctly.

By the way as I've just started on this list is the accepted procedure
to reply back to the ethereal-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx address or to the
respondents address?  I'm using Agent for e-mail at the moment (as it
can double for newsgroup access also) but it sometimes seems to give
me different e-mail addresses when I click reply.