On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:35:53AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 06:11:33PM +0200, Eike Rathke wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Friday, 2017-09-22 13:16:38 -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > > > > So the question is if (g)roup reply with 'set reply_self; unset metoo' > > > should disable the $nometoo behavior. I think so, but please chime in! > > > > Might make sense. But I'd not expect it. I'd rather not expect > > $reply_self to affect group reply at all, only normal reply. So whether > > myself is in the list of recipients in a group reply should depend only > > on $metoo. > > > > But maybe that's me, I find the behaviour of an unset $reply_self > > logical and setting $reply_self rather odd.. > > I'm afraid I'm not that familiar with mutt internals in order to know > which way it's better. I just think that the current behavior is > wrong, and needs to be fixed so that group replies to an email sent by > myself don't end up batching the Cc into the To field.
My previous reply never did make it through. I agree with Eike that I find $reply_self odd, so that makes me a poor judge of "correct" behavior. Yet, I also agree with Roger that the current behavior for a group reply is very strange. The code _is_ initially setting To according to $reply_self for a group reply, but the $nometoo ends up mangling it, which does not happen for the reply case. So I'm inclined to push the patch: with a caveat that any screams from other users will incur a revert. -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
