Eugene --
...and then Mikko Hänninen said...
% Eugene Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 14 Jun 2000:
...
% > to the sender's email address, but also takes all the email addresses in
% > the "To:" header and adds them to the "To:" header of the reply. Group
%
% Why should it matter whether the original To: recipients are added to
% the To: or Cc: header? mutt-dev is the right place for
What he (and others) said for this ...
%
% In this case, if you really require the Cc recipients to be part of
% To, what I'd do is do edit-with-headers, and then replace the Cc: header
% name tage with some empty space. The result is that the Cc recipients
... but for this I'd just change the Cc: to To: and let mutt combine the
two *or* use my handy vim command
c2w<tab><esc>
to change the first two words (To and the colon) to a tab if I really
wanted to do it right.
If you really cared a lot, you could even write a macro for <group-reply>
that would rewrite your $editor variable to go straight to the first Cc:
so that you'd be ready to change it without hunting and then maybe even
reset it when you get back to the compose menu (or perhaps you just also
write a macro for <reply>).
Oops; all of this requires that you have $edit_hdrs set on, too. But the
macro(s) would make that easier.
:-D
--
David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
The "new millennium" starts at the beginning of 2001. There was no year 0.
Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh*
PGP signature
