On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:24:21PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > On Friday, April 10 at 01:10 PM, quoth J. Limon: > > Also, is it just me or does this list not have a proper reply-to ? > > When I hit reply it tried to reply directly to you. > > I never noticed. I think there's an argument to be had about reply-to > mangling by mailing lists, but I avoid the problem entirely: I use > mutt's <list-reply> function to reply to all mailing list messages (by > default, this is bound to the L key, I think). > > And before you protest "that's annoying! What if I forget?", let me > stop you right there. Why forget? MUTT TO THE RESCUE! I figure I > almost *always* want to list-reply when I'm replying to a mailing-list > message, right? So, I rebind the 'r' key with... you guessed it: > HOOKS! (Have I mentioned that I *love* hooks?) > > The easiest way to do this is with a message-hook: > > message-hook . 'bind pager l list-reply; bind pager r reply' > message-hook ~l 'bind pager r list-reply; bind pager l reply > > Eh? Eh? Cool, no? (the ~l matches all mailing-list messages) Of > course, that doesn't help in the INDEX, and it's impossible to change > the key bindings based on the message that's *SELECTED*, so I match > based on the folder I'm in (which is virtually always what I want to > do): > > folder-hook . \ > 'bind index l list-reply; bind index r reply' > folder-hook "Subscribed" \ > 'bind index r list-reply; bind index l reply' > > Make sense? > > ~Kyle > -- > Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on > what to have for dinner. > -- James Bovard
That actually makes perfect sense. That way I could easily reply to the person OR the list depending on the situation. I'll just have to train myself to remember L instead of r for lists, but that shouldn't be too hard given that lists starts with L, hurr. Also, mutt's new smtp support is great. Just wanted to throw that out there. -- "If a problem can be solved there is no use worrying about it. If it can't be solved, worrying will do no good."
