On 2000-02-15 00:34:28 +0000, Lars Hecking wrote:
> While this reasoning may be valid, I never liked the new
> subscribe command.
Sorry, the new subscribe command is equivalent to what was formerly
known as "lists". "lists" is essentially a weaker version now which
only affects the list-reply function.
(Partially, the naming is due to the fact that I couldn't think
about a better name than "lists" for known, but unsubscribed lists -
"unsubscribe" would have been against the systematic of the un*
commands.)
> I think it's a case where mutt tries to be more clever than the
> user. It doesn't even work properly in the general case (how to
> deal with ml's as of yet unknown to the user?).
Not at all.
> And, where there not some changes wrt generation of the m-f-t
> header recently, which may or may not affect teh usefulness of
> lists/subscribe?
The recent changes affected the interpretation of that header, not
the generation. More precisely, list-reply now honors
mail-followup-to.
--
http://www.guug.de/~roessler/
