On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 05:36:05PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> The purpose of this field is to prevent you from receiving duplicate copies
> of replies to messages which you send by specifying that you will receive a
> copy of the message if it is addressed to the mailing list (and thus there
> is no need to also include your address in a group reply).
Which is fine.
I've already told the person off that said "your mailer is busted", and
explained that the header it was generating was quite correct.
This last email I sent was regarding a slightly different issue, specifically
my suggesting that I believed the definition of 'g'roup reply and 'L'ist
reply was not entirely expected.
> > 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.
> It's the exact opposite behaviour of that stated in the manual for that
> variable. And judging by the number of people that seem to make use of
> $followup_to as it does work, not a lot agree with you about what it should
> do.
You know as well as I do that most people don't have a clue what they
actually want and when they learn that things aren't as they expected,
they quickly adapt. The whole win9x revolution is a perfect example of
this behaviour.
I KNOW what the documented behaviour for mutt is. What I was explaining
was why I always use 'g'roup reply instead of 'L'ist reply. 'L'ist reply
doesn't do what I want when I want to reply to a list. I'm sure many
people are happy with many things, but the fact remains that in the
general case, somebody responding to an article on a list, should be
able to not consider whether to use 'g'roup reply or 'L'ist reply...
they should just use 'L'ist reply... but I don't... because the
behaviour is wrong in almost every case I've ever had the desire
to consider using it. To me 'L'ist reply being defined as "reply to
only an address which is a recognized list" is wrong. I want my 'L'ist
reply to be "smartly reply to an article in a mailing list."
Your "solution" for me is to disable Mail-FollowUp-To: header generation,
and that's completely bogus. I want a SMART 'L'ist reply which generates
it the most perfectly it can in the significant majority of the cases.
Is that too much to ask? :-)
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/
