On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 06:20:07PM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> > This morning I received a message which had 130 recipients (myself
> > included) all in the To: header. I wanted to send my reply to all 130
> > recipients, so I used the 'g' key to do a group-reply. However, after
> > composing my message, I noticed that the composer had only put the
> > sender's address into the To: header for the reply. The message had
> > a Reply-To: header, pointing back to the sender. I double checked my
> > settings, and my "reply_to" variable is set to "ask-yes". Mutt should
> > have asked me what address I wanted to use for replies. Instead it went
> > ahead and used the Reply-To: address, with the result that I cannot
> > reply to all the recipients. Is this a bug, or am I missing something?
>
> It works like that for me, although I've never tried with a message that
> has 130 recipients. I've tried it with ones that have several dozen,
> though.
>
> The Reply-To should only affect where the reply to the *sender* goes.,
> when doing a group-reply. (At least, that's how it works for me, on my
> trusty "old" 1.1.9.) Ie. when I do a group-reply, the To: header will
> contain either the original email's From address, or Reply-To if that
> was set (depending on $reply_to of course). Then everything else from
> the recipient list, but excluding your own email addresses (as defined
> by $from and $alternates), goes to the Cc.
>
> That's what I've observed, at least. :-)
>
> Can you reproduce the problem?
Actually, I should have done more testing, because I did discover a small
problem in the original message. Of the 130 addresses, one of them appeared
like this:
"Firstname Lastname" <"[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I didn't see that extra quota inside the address. I must have looked
at the list 10 times, and still I missed it. Finally, when I did see
it, I edited the message, removing the extra quote, and hey presto! It
worked. I was able to reply to all the recipients. Seems mutt couldn't
handle that extra quote inside the address, and ended up with a blank Cc:
recipient list. Since I'm not an expert on RFC822 addressing, I don't
know if mutt's behaviour here is a bug, or a feature.
While I was at it, I also decided to create a test message with 200
recipients, and group-reply to them. I noticed that mutt cut-off the
recipient list at address no. 148. so it seems that mutt has a built-in
limit anyway, on the number of characters it can handle in the recipient
list.
--
See complete headers for more info
