On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 06:12:48PM -0600 or thereabouts, David DeSimone wrote:
> Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I have also more-or-less abandoned the List-Reply function within Mutt.
Just to add a different note here, I love it!
> list; they merely want help from the list members. In the old days, I
> used to believe that one should always subscribe to a list before
> posting to it, but I no longer believe that; the number of lists is
> simply too staggering, to expect such behavior from most people.
I still believe this and act on it myself (I've subscribed to three
lists in the last week because I am going to need to ask some
questions on them soon and I thought I'd better lurk a bit first),
but yeah: it seems less common.
I tend to send well over half of my replies directly to the person
only. Either it's a FAQ, which is why I know the answer, or I am
writing something long and think the list can live without it. But
if I don't see a "Please cc me; I am not subscribed", then I will
always use 'L' in preference to 'g'.
I find it extremely handy.
Whilst on the subject, I have to add a vote of thanks to whichever
genius thought of making r(eply) check the reply-to. I loathe
my answers going to a list where reply-to is set to the list
when I was intending to send it direct to the person. Mutt asks
me "Reply to (name of list)?" and gives me the option to say 'n'.
Previously, I used to resort to forward in elm :) (I just know
that someone is going to chime in and say that this particular
behaviour irritates the heck out of them now I've said that!)
> > 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? :-)
Hey, I like it. I might be that majority :) [ducks]
> There's no way for Mutt to know who subscribes or doesn't subscribe to a
> list. The best solution is the MFT header, but it only works well on a
> list like this one, where everyone uses it. I can't think of an
> intelligent solution; can you?
AIs. Ideally, they'd know what I wanted to reply, and type it all
in for me, too, saving me that as well as adding a few people to a
cc line :)
Telsa
