Active timestamp with notification in advance

Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Wanrong Lin]

Hi,

Currently we can set the number of days a deadline should be notified in 
advance with something like this:

* TODO Do this
  DEADLINE: <2008-03-24 Mon -30d>

But it does not work on a plain active time stamp like this:

* TODO See Doctor
  <2008-03-24 Mon -30d>

Can we consider adding this feature to plain active time stamp? It would 
be great for appointment notification.

Thanks for giving that a thought.

Wanrong

Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Carsten Dominik]

In Org-mode, by definition, Deadlines are the ones with ahead warnings.
Why don't you just turn the appointments where you need early  
reminders into deadlines?

- Carsten

On Feb 26, 2008, at 11:01 PM, Wanrong Lin wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Currently we can set the number of days a deadline should be  
> notified in advance with something like this:
>
> * TODO Do this
> DEADLINE: <2008-03-24 Mon -30d>
>
> But it does not work on a plain active time stamp like this:
>
> * TODO See Doctor
> <2008-03-24 Mon -30d>
>
> Can we consider adding this feature to plain active time stamp? It  
> would be great for appointment notification.
>
> Thanks for giving that a thought.
>
> Wanrong
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Wanrong Lin]

Changing appointment time stamp into deadline will work, but I just 
think conceptually it is kind of twisted, because "deadline" means you 
have to do it BEFORE the specified time, while "appointment" means you 
have to do it at the specified time. Many calendar systems (like Google) 
support ahead notifications for appointments, so maybe we can consider 
extending the definition of ahead warnings in org-mode to scheduled 
items and active time stamps. Just my 2 cents. (Or, maybe I should make 
a better habit of looking ahead a few days in my agenda buffer. :-))

Wanrong

Carsten Dominik wrote:
> In Org-mode, by definition, Deadlines are the ones with ahead warnings.
> Why don't you just turn the appointments where you need early 
> reminders into deadlines?
>
> - Carsten
>
> On Feb 26, 2008, at 11:01 PM, Wanrong Lin wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Currently we can set the number of days a deadline should be notified 
>> in advance with something like this:
>>
>> * TODO Do this
>> DEADLINE: <2008-03-24 Mon -30d>
>>
>> But it does not work on a plain active time stamp like this:
>>
>> * TODO See Doctor
>> <2008-03-24 Mon -30d>
>>
>> Can we consider adding this feature to plain active time stamp? It 
>> would be great for appointment notification.
>>
>> Thanks for giving that a thought.
>>
>> Wanrong
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>

Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Bernt Hansen]

Maybe use SCHEDULED: instead of DEADLINE: ?


Wanrong Lin <wanrong.lin@gmail.com> writes:

> Changing appointment time stamp into deadline will work, but I just
> think conceptually it is kind of twisted, because "deadline" means you
> have to do it BEFORE the specified time, while "appointment" means you
> have to do it at the specified time. Many calendar systems (like
> Google) support ahead notifications for appointments, so maybe we can
> consider extending the definition of ahead warnings in org-mode to
> scheduled items and active time stamps. Just my 2 cents. (Or, maybe I
> should make a better habit of looking ahead a few days in my agenda
> buffer. :-))
>
> Wanrong
>
> Carsten Dominik wrote:
>> In Org-mode, by definition, Deadlines are the ones with ahead warnings.
>> Why don't you just turn the appointments where you need early
>> reminders into deadlines?
>>
>> - Carsten
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2008, at 11:01 PM, Wanrong Lin wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Currently we can set the number of days a deadline should be
>>> notified in advance with something like this:
>>>
>>> * TODO Do this
>>> DEADLINE: <2008-03-24 Mon -30d>
>>>
>>> But it does not work on a plain active time stamp like this:
>>>
>>> * TODO See Doctor
>>> <2008-03-24 Mon -30d>
>>>
>>> Can we consider adding this feature to plain active time stamp? It
>>> would be great for appointment notification.
>>>
>>> Thanks for giving that a thought.
>>>
>>> Wanrong
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>>> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Bastien]

Bernt Hansen <bernt@norang.ca> writes:

> Maybe use SCHEDULED: instead of DEADLINE: ?

I'm afraid this won't solve Wanrong's problem: you don't get warned
about scheduled items.

Wanrong: maybe you can turn your items into scheduled items and then use
`org-check-before-date' in the relevant file to get the list of upcoming
scheduled items.

But that's still a manual workaround...

-- 
Bastien

Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Bernt Hansen]

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> Bernt Hansen <bernt@norang.ca> writes:
>
>> Maybe use SCHEDULED: instead of DEADLINE: ?
>
> I'm afraid this won't solve Wanrong's problem: you don't get warned
> about scheduled items.

Oops.  You're right - I should have tested that first.

Thanks for the clarification.

-Bernt

Re: Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Wanrong Lin]

Bastien wrote:
> Bernt Hansen <bernt@norang.ca> writes:
>
>   
>> Maybe use SCHEDULED: instead of DEADLINE: ?
>>     
>
> I'm afraid this won't solve Wanrong's problem: you don't get warned
> about scheduled items.
>
> Wanrong: maybe you can turn your items into scheduled items and then use
> `org-check-before-date' in the relevant file to get the list of upcoming
> scheduled items.
>
> But that's still a manual workaround...
>   
Thanks a lot for the suggestions, but manual workaround does not work 
for me, as I want org to take care of giving me a notification in 
advance in the agenda buffer.

For SCHEDULED and plain active time stamp, I don't think we need to have 
a default ahead notification setting as with deadlines, but it would 
really be nice to support the <..... -3d> format. It would be even nicer 
to have a new keyword (like "SCHEDULED@") that indicates a strictly 
scheduled item (just a fancy term for "appointment") and hence a default 
ahead notification setting can be applied. The lack of real appointment 
support in org-mode in fact is a little bit puzzling to me, since 
SCHEDULED item may or may not be strictly scheduled, while plain time 
stamp item may or may not be something that needs to take actions on (as 
it could be just an event).

Wanrong

Re: Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Wanrong Lin]

Wanrong Lin wrote:
>
>>   
> Thanks a lot for the suggestions, but manual workaround does not work 
> for me, as I want org to take care of giving me a notification in 
> advance in the agenda buffer.
>
> For SCHEDULED and plain active time stamp, I don't think we need to 
> have a default ahead notification setting as with deadlines, but it 
> would really be nice to support the <..... -3d> format. It would be 
> even nicer to have a new keyword (like "SCHEDULED@") that indicates a 
> strictly scheduled item (just a fancy term for "appointment") and 
> hence a default ahead notification setting can be applied. The lack of 
> real appointment support in org-mode in fact is a little bit puzzling 
> to me, since SCHEDULED item may or may not be strictly scheduled, 
> while plain time stamp item may or may not be something that needs to 
> take actions on (as it could be just an event).
>
> Wanrong
>
>

Actually, I was wrong on the "lack of real appointment" support claim 
above. We can define a TODO heading with a *plain* active time stamp as 
an appointment, and hence maybe a default ahead notification can be 
applied to those items.

Re: Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Carsten Dominik]

On Feb 28, 2008, at 3:05 AM, Wanrong Lin wrote:

> Bastien wrote:
>> Bernt Hansen <bernt@norang.ca> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Maybe use SCHEDULED: instead of DEADLINE: ?
>>>
>>
>> I'm afraid this won't solve Wanrong's problem: you don't get warned
>> about scheduled items.
>>
>> Wanrong: maybe you can turn your items into scheduled items and  
>> then use
>> `org-check-before-date' in the relevant file to get the list of  
>> upcoming
>> scheduled items.
>>
>> But that's still a manual workaround...
>>
> Thanks a lot for the suggestions, but manual workaround does not  
> work for me, as I want org to take care of giving me a notification  
> in advance in the agenda buffer.
>
> For SCHEDULED and plain active time stamp, I don't think we need to  
> have a default ahead notification setting as with deadlines, but it  
> would really be nice to support the <..... -3d> format. It would be  
> even nicer to have a new keyword (like "SCHEDULED@") that indicates  
> a strictly scheduled item (just a fancy term for "appointment") and  
> hence a default ahead notification setting can be applied. The lack  
> of real appointment support in org-mode in fact is a little bit  
> puzzling to me, since SCHEDULED item may or may not be strictly  
> scheduled, while plain time stamp item may or may not be something  
> that needs to take actions on (as it could be just an event).

Hmmm, lets discuss this for a while.

One thing is that I have been thinking for a while already if we  
should have an APPOINTMENT keyword
to mark plain time stamps that actually are appointments, and in this  
way to differentiate them
from events that you'd like to have in your agenda.

However, about ahead warnings of appointments.  The way I see it is  
this:
One important goal (at least for me) is to keep my agenda as empty as  
possible,
listing only the things I really need to do.  If I have a meeting in a  
few days
and I get an ahead warning, this only distracts me.  Because each time  
I see
that reminder, I need to think *again* why I did put that reminder and  
what I
am supposed to be doing to prepare it.

Isn't  is much better to just put the meeting on the agenda with a  
timestamp and then
immediately think about *tasks* that I need to do before the meeting.   
List those
tasks under the meetig headline, and assign deadlines to them - you  
will get
the ahead warning.  This seems to me is a much saner way of working.   
But I
am interested to hear your use case - why do you want to be reminded of
future appointments *each* time you look at your list for today?

For meetings where I do not have anything to prepare, I do take a look  
every
morning on an extended agenda of 10 days, to see what is coming.
Once a day, and that is it.

- Carsten



>
>
> Wanrong
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Bastien]

Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:

> On Feb 28, 2008, at 3:05 AM, Wanrong Lin wrote:
>>
>> For SCHEDULED and plain active time stamp, I don't think we need to
>> have a default ahead notification setting as with deadlines, but it
>> would really be nice to support the <..... -3d> format. It would be
>> even nicer to have a new keyword (like "SCHEDULED@") that indicates
>> a strictly scheduled item (just a fancy term for "appointment") and
>> hence a default ahead notification setting can be applied. The lack
>> of real appointment support in org-mode in fact is a little bit
>> puzzling to me, since SCHEDULED item may or may not be strictly
>> scheduled, while plain time stamp item may or may not be something
>> that needs to take actions on (as it could be just an event).
>
> Hmmm, lets discuss this for a while.

It looks like there are two questions here: whether we should have a
dedicated syntax for appointments, distinct from active timestamps, and
whether we should allow warnings on other timestamps than deadline ones.
(Maybe a good thing to keep these issue separate as long as possible.)

I don't feel the need of a new APPOINTMENT keyword, or a SCHEDULED@ one,
because I'm using timestamps like this:

- active timestamps for appointments;

- SCHEDULED timestamps for items that (1) need to remain in the agenda
  when they are not DONE, and (2) I don't need to be warned about;

- DEADLINE for everything else that I need to attach a date with.

I guess this setup is somewhat counter-intuitive for newcomers, since
the semantic of SCHEDULED makes you believe this is what you need for
most tasks.  But I think this semantic is somewhat misleading.

With the setup above, I tend to use more and more active timestamps and
deadlines.  The need for a scheduled item is very rare, since the two
specific features of SCHEDULED is that I won't be warned about such
tasks and I will be able to find them with `org-check-before-date'...

So, rather than introducing a new keyword, I'd better get rid of them
and redefine timestamps like this:


  [2008-02-28 jeu]   Inactive timestamp
  <2008-02-28 jeu>   Active timestamp
  {2008-02-28 jeu}   Interactive timestamp


By "interactive", I mean that those timestamps would be aware of
`org-deadline-warning-days' and other variables like this one, or be
able to stay in the agenda if the associated task is not DONE, etc.

For exemple:

  {2008-02-28 jeu -10d}  
    => Warn 10 days before

  {2008-02-28 jeu -10d--+2d} 
    => Warn 10 days before and 2 days after, if not DONE
 
Active timestamp would also use this syntax, but for the purpose of
defining *time spans*, not pre- and post-reminders.

For example:

  <2008-02-18 jeu +3d> 
    => Define an appointment for a meeting between
       2008-02-28 and 2008-02-21.


I'm aware that this change would require a careful redefinition of the
use of "scheduled" and "deadline" in variable names and in the manual,
but I think that it would finally help simplifying things a bit.

In a sense, relying spontaneous understanding that people have of the
words "SCHEDULED" and "DEADLINE" can be a bit dangerous -- or simply
assumes too much about the normal use of those kinds of timestamps.

-- 
Bastien

Re: Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Carsten Dominik]

On Feb 28, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Bastien wrote:

> Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
>
>> On Feb 28, 2008, at 3:05 AM, Wanrong Lin wrote:
>>>
>>> For SCHEDULED and plain active time stamp, I don't think we need to
>>> have a default ahead notification setting as with deadlines, but it
>>> would really be nice to support the <..... -3d> format. It would be
>>> even nicer to have a new keyword (like "SCHEDULED@") that indicates
>>> a strictly scheduled item (just a fancy term for "appointment") and
>>> hence a default ahead notification setting can be applied. The lack
>>> of real appointment support in org-mode in fact is a little bit
>>> puzzling to me, since SCHEDULED item may or may not be strictly
>>> scheduled, while plain time stamp item may or may not be something
>>> that needs to take actions on (as it could be just an event).
>>
>> Hmmm, lets discuss this for a while.
>
> It looks like there are two questions here: whether we should have a
> dedicated syntax for appointments, distinct from active timestamps,  
> and
> whether we should allow warnings on other timestamps than deadline  
> ones.
> (Maybe a good thing to keep these issue separate as long as possible.)
>
> I don't feel the need of a new APPOINTMENT keyword, or a SCHEDULED@  
> one,
> because I'm using timestamps like this:
>
> - active timestamps for appointments;
>
> - SCHEDULED timestamps for items that (1) need to remain in the agenda
> when they are not DONE, and (2) I don't need to be warned about;
>
> - DEADLINE for everything else that I need to attach a date with.
>
> I guess this setup is somewhat counter-intuitive for newcomers, since
> the semantic of SCHEDULED makes you believe this is what you need for
> most tasks.  But I think this semantic is somewhat misleading.

Yes, time has shown tat it is misleading.  This is unfortunate,
but I don't think we can move always from this.  Too many people
are using this already, and we need to stay compatible and if possible
we should not add complexity.

- Carsten

>
>
> With the setup above, I tend to use more and more active timestamps  
> and
> deadlines.  The need for a scheduled item is very rare, since the two
> specific features of SCHEDULED is that I won't be warned about such
> tasks and I will be able to find them with `org-check-before-date'...
>
> So, rather than introducing a new keyword, I'd better get rid of them
> and redefine timestamps like this:
>
>
> [2008-02-28 jeu]   Inactive timestamp
> <2008-02-28 jeu>   Active timestamp
> {2008-02-28 jeu}   Interactive timestamp
>
>
> By "interactive", I mean that those timestamps would be aware of
> `org-deadline-warning-days' and other variables like this one, or be
> able to stay in the agenda if the associated task is not DONE, etc.
>
> For exemple:
>
> {2008-02-28 jeu -10d}
>   => Warn 10 days before
>
> {2008-02-28 jeu -10d--+2d}
>   => Warn 10 days before and 2 days after, if not DONE
>
> Active timestamp would also use this syntax, but for the purpose of
> defining *time spans*, not pre- and post-reminders.
>
> For example:
>
> <2008-02-18 jeu +3d>
>   => Define an appointment for a meeting between
>      2008-02-28 and 2008-02-21.
>
>
> I'm aware that this change would require a careful redefinition of the
> use of "scheduled" and "deadline" in variable names and in the manual,
> but I think that it would finally help simplifying things a bit.
>
> In a sense, relying spontaneous understanding that people have of the
> words "SCHEDULED" and "DEADLINE" can be a bit dangerous -- or simply
> assumes too much about the normal use of those kinds of timestamps.
>
> -- 
> Bastien

Re: Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Wanrong Lin]

Carsten Dominik wrote:
>>>
>> Thanks a lot for the suggestions, but manual workaround does not work 
>> for me, as I want org to take care of giving me a notification in 
>> advance in the agenda buffer.
>>
>> For SCHEDULED and plain active time stamp, I don't think we need to 
>> have a default ahead notification setting as with deadlines, but it 
>> would really be nice to support the <..... -3d> format. It would be 
>> even nicer to have a new keyword (like "SCHEDULED@") that indicates a 
>> strictly scheduled item (just a fancy term for "appointment") and 
>> hence a default ahead notification setting can be applied. The lack 
>> of real appointment support in org-mode in fact is a little bit 
>> puzzling to me, since SCHEDULED item may or may not be strictly 
>> scheduled, while plain time stamp item may or may not be something 
>> that needs to take actions on (as it could be just an event).
>
> Hmmm, lets discuss this for a while.
>
> One thing is that I have been thinking for a while already if we 
> should have an APPOINTMENT keyword
> to mark plain time stamps that actually are appointments, and in this 
> way to differentiate them
> from events that you'd like to have in your agenda.
>
> However, about ahead warnings of appointments.  The way I see it is this:
> One important goal (at least for me) is to keep my agenda as empty as 
> possible,
> listing only the things I really need to do.  If I have a meeting in a 
> few days
> and I get an ahead warning, this only distracts me.  Because each time 
> I see
> that reminder, I need to think *again* why I did put that reminder and 
> what I
> am supposed to be doing to prepare it.
>
> Isn't  is much better to just put the meeting on the agenda with a 
> timestamp and then
> immediately think about *tasks* that I need to do before the meeting.  
> List those
> tasks under the meetig headline, and assign deadlines to them - you 
> will get
> the ahead warning.  This seems to me is a much saner way of working.  
> But I
> am interested to hear your use case - why do you want to be reminded of
> future appointments *each* time you look at your list for today?
>
> For meetings where I do not have anything to prepare, I do take a look 
> every
> morning on an extended agenda of 10 days, to see what is coming.
> Once a day, and that is it.
>
> - Carsten
>
>

A simple example is: sometimes I have very early dental appointment, 
like 8:00AM. But usually I don't get up that early. So if I open my 
computer at 9:00AM and find out I have missed an appointment, then the 
agenda is useless. And I will get haunted by the feeling that "I might 
still have missed something even if I checked my agenda".

I do agree that too many ahead notifications is distracting. But on the 
other hand, my imagination of the ideal org usage is: I look at today's 
agenda, and things are planned well for me, I just need to follow the 
agenda blindly (well, ideally). This is the reward for my upfront 
planning, meaning if I take my diligence in planning tasks when the 
issues just come up, I don't have to hassle around in the last minute. I 
want to have that security feeling of "I won't miss anything if I 
checked my agenda".

To achieve that goal, sometimes I need some sense of what is going to 
happen or what I am supposed to do tomorrow, or next a few days, 
depending on the task and context. To check agendas ahead every day is a 
good habit, but is not reliable, and I want to eliminate dependency on 
those habits as much as possible. I want to rely on only one habit: 
check today's agenda.

To reduce the distractions from those ahead notifications, we can do the 
following:

1. Don't give too early notifications. In my above example, probably one 
day ahead is good enough
2. Group those ahead notifications at the end of today's agenda, maybe 
with a divider to separate them out.

Another perspective to my above argument is: many of us use org (and 
emacs) because of its flexibility. It is not the easiest to learn to 
use, but once you master it, you can configure it to suit your own 
style. And hence I don't expect everyone will agree with my planning 
strategy, but if let's say 1/3 of the users think the feature has its 
value, I think it is well worth consideration, given it is an option 
that does no harm to people who choose not to use it.

Thanks for reading this.

Wanrong

RE: Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Egli Christian (KIRO 433)]

Hi Wanrong

> To achieve that goal, sometimes I need some sense of what is going to 
> happen or what I am supposed to do tomorrow, or next a few days, 
> depending on the task and context. To check agendas ahead every day is
a 
> good habit, but is not reliable, and I want to eliminate dependency on

> those habits as much as possible.

I simply enter my appointments in my diary, integrate my diary in my
agenda and use the week view in the agenda. That way I always see what
I'm supposed to do tomorrow.

HTH
Christian 

Re: Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Wanrong Lin]

If you can stick to the habit of looking into the next day (especially 
on the last day in you weekly agenda), that will work. But I am not 
reliable on that. And sometimes you may need to look ahead more than one 
day. I want to be lazy and dumb with the help of org. :-)

Wanrong

> I simply enter my appointments in my diary, integrate my diary in my
> agenda and use the week view in the agenda. That way I always see what
> I'm supposed to do tomorrow.
>
> HTH
> Christian 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>   

Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Bernt Hansen]

Set up your agenda to display today forward.  My weekly view always
shows today and the next 6 days.

 (setq org-agenda-start-on-weekday nil)

-Bernt


Wanrong Lin <wanrong.lin@gmail.com> writes:

> If you can stick to the habit of looking into the next day (especially
> on the last day in you weekly agenda), that will work. But I am not
> reliable on that. And sometimes you may need to look ahead more than
> one day. I want to be lazy and dumb with the help of org. :-)
>
> Wanrong
>
>> I simply enter my appointments in my diary, integrate my diary in my
>> agenda and use the week view in the agenda. That way I always see what
>> I'm supposed to do tomorrow.
>>
>> HTH
>> Christian 
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>>   
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: Active timestamp with notification in advance

[Wanrong Lin]

This is good! I did not know such a setting exists. I will use this 
while Carsten and others think about whether it is worth to have 
appointment notifications. Thanks a lot!

Wanrong

Bernt Hansen wrote:
> Set up your agenda to display today forward.  My weekly view always
> shows today and the next 6 days.
>
>  (setq org-agenda-start-on-weekday nil)
>
> -Bernt
>
>
> Wanrong Lin <wanrong.lin@gmail.com> writes:
>
>   
>> If you can stick to the habit of looking into the next day (especially
>> on the last day in you weekly agenda), that will work. But I am not
>> reliable on that. And sometimes you may need to look ahead more than
>> one day. I want to be lazy and dumb with the help of org. :-)
>>
>> Wanrong
>>
>>     
>>> I simply enter my appointments in my diary, integrate my diary in my
>>> agenda and use the week view in the agenda. That way I always see what
>>> I'm supposed to do tomorrow.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>> Christian 
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>>> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>>>   
>>>       
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>>