On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 07:41:52PM +0200, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 14 Jan 2000:
>> Either Mail-FollowUp-To: should _only_ include the list, or it
>> should include everybody which includes me. Because the first isn't
>> always possible (we have no way of knowing which people are
>> actually in which list) I think the second makes more sense.
> As I understand it, Mail-Followup-To should include the addresses of
> 1) all of the relevant mailing lists (usually just one)
> 2) all the recipients who are not subscribed to the above lists
> (the individual recipients who are subscribed will get a copy via
> the list)
> Now, if your address doesn't appear in a Mail-Followup-To header, it is
> that way because Mutt thinks that you're subscribed to a list that *is*
> included in the header.
The thing is... this makes perfect sense for 'L'ist reply... but not
for 'g'roup reply. There _is_ a difference.
I just don't like this magic happening underneath me. That is why I
chose to use 'g'roup reply instead of 'L'ist reply.
Now I'm sitting here being accused of having a broken mailer, being forced
to agree that it is in fact behaving wrong in my situation... and having
to whine to the makers of the client who don't seem to agree.
Sure, there are "hacks" I can do to make it do what I want, like take
out the "lists perl5-porters" entry in my ~/.muttrc... but I'd rather
the problem was fixed.
Regardless of how it is implemented now... these are the two functions
people want:
1) A method to "Reply to All". No magic except that addresses which
match the "alternates" variable would be filtered from the To:/Cc:
lists.
2) A method to respond to a thread in a list. No you don't want to
JUST respond to the list... you want to respond to the list and
anybody in the To:/Cc: that may not be on the list. This would filter
addresses which match the "alternates" variable that show up in
the To:/Cc:, as well as filter addresses that match the "alternates"
variable that show up in the Mail-FollowUp-To: if the ONLY other
addresses in the Mail-FollowUp-To: are lists to which I belong to
or the address of the person that the email originates from.
Here's a few sample cases:
1) I belong to mutt-users.... some person who doesn't posts a question
to mutt-users... I want my smart 'L'ist reply function to respond
to both mutt-users AS WELL AS the person. If the person isn't
copied then he/she may never get the response! For this case, the
desired Mail-FollowUp-To: would include:
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) I belong to perl5-porters, but not perl-loop (I belong to both...
but pretend I didn't...) Somebody crossposts a thread to
perl5-porters and perl-loop. I take part in the discussion that
I see in perl5-porters... Somebody decides to reply to a thought
I brought up... but they decided to remove perl5-porters because
it was quite specific to perl-loop... but wait? Where did my
address go? Because the people who made mutt were thinking that
my name was redundant my name wasn't put in the header going out.
Point in being... in order for my address to be removed from the
Mail-FollowUp-To:... it must be determined that all the other addresses
are either not lists... and the only for sure part here is if the address
is the same as that of the sender address... and if I belong to every other
list mentioned.
That is the only behaviour which is practical and to be expected.
Thank you for listening,
mark
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
