Hello,
mutt is wonderful. However there is nothing perfect in this world (for
me, that is), so I'd like to talk a bit about ignore_list_reply_to
variable. We have a couple of local (in geographical sense) mailing
lists in which mails come with a huge variance in To: fields, e.g.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Programming mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
To: My Good Friend [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and even
To: "Someones Real Name" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(there are three aliases instead of one fixed domain name, so
[EMAIL PROTECTED] above is always the same mailing list). It is now
being voted if Reply-To should contain just the mailing list address
(one of the three), or both mailing list and original sender address.
Unfortunately, this renders mutt's `ignore_list_reply_to' completely
useless.
But wouldn't it be better if mutt just parsed the Reply-To field in
this way: if any of the addresses there belongs to a mailing list
AND it is also mentioned in the To field, then it is simply ignored
as if it wasn't there at all.
Also, a new sorting mode, sort by list, would be nice (maybe working
like "sort by To:" for messages which aren't sent to a mailing list,
also showing them together before those sent to lists). Now sort by To:
almost does this, but not always -- sometimes To: field is something
different and mailing list address appears in Cc:. Well, this is pretty
low priority.
Another thing -- when no messages match the limiting pattern, all of
them are displayed. However if there are a couple of messages and they
disappear (after hitting `d' and `$') the screen becomes empty. I'd
prefer to have this behavior also in the first case. Others may object
-- so maybe make it a run-time option. This is also low priority.
Still, mutt is wonderful. Any chances of porting it to Win32 so I could
comfortably read my mail at work too? :)
Best Regards,
Marius Gedminas
--
Cheap, Fast, Good--pick two.
