On 2008-03-03, Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-03-02 15:04:27 +0000, N.J. Mann wrote: > > >> I have created a patch that starts a new message to the sender > >> of the currently selected message. In addition, I think I > >> updated The Manual correctly. > > > Great idea. > > >> Suggestions/Thoughts/Criticism are welcome. > > > I didn't compile without warnings for me, so I fixed that and > > also made a few white space changes to match the usual Mutt > > style. > > So, the main differences from the usual reply function are: > > - no default subject header (oh well) > - no handling of reply headers (probably a bug) > - no headers that indicate that the message is a reply > > I don't think that this should be yet another function -- rather, > I'd suggest to add a quadoption to reply that controls the various > reply headers.
First off, that would be contrary to the way mutt handles reply variations now. Mutt currently has separate functions for reply group-reply list-reply Secondly, I don't think of this as a variation on reply. When I use the function, I want to send a new message to a particular person whose address I don't have memorized, don't have an alias for and which I'm too lazy to look up or copy, but from whom I have recently received some other correspondence. As you point out above, this new function creates a message having none of the attributes of a reply. In addition to your list, the message body does not contain a copy, quoted or not, of the original message. This function seems to me much closer to a variation on composing or address-selection. A quadoption to make <reply> behave like <compose-sender> would have to control at least four attributes of the message: To:, Subject:, In-Reply-To:, body. That seems like an odd assortment to group under a single quadoption, and I certainly wouldn't want to have to answer a lot of questions just to distinguish the two ways of creating a message. Making this function a variation on <reply> would also make it trigger reply-hooks, which is probably undesirable. Regards, Gary
