Hi, first i have to say thanks for Mutt(1), i've used it for years. Now i'm getting older and am currently on the «plain and antique» trip and am therefore slowly extending nail(1), as of Heirloom. Anyway, while doing some work on Mail-Followup-To: stuff i took mutt(1) as reference and found that it reacts strange in respect to interaction with the standardized Reply-To: field. You can very well repeat this with having one or two entries in Reply-To:, alone and ditto in conjunction with one+ entries in Mail-Followup-To:; and see how nice it gets when there was data in Cc:.
What i planned for my pfffff was that i join Reply-To:'s with Mail-Followup-To:'s, keeping the stuff in Cc: around. (Basic idea: editing later is possible.) Basic thought: Reply-To:'s are often somewhat automatic, whereas Mail-Followup-To:, though never beyond draft, is used and added to mails by hand (examples can be found at least in last days of OpenBSD-ports). I just yet stumbled over that problem so the brain is behind (with the real question being wether it will ever catch up,), so don't ask me no questions. I just thought the behaviour (of Mutt 1.5.21 (2010-09-15)) isn't quite pragmatic. Is it? --steffen Forza Figa!
