On 16.12.12 12:20, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:00:25PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > On 15.12.12 17:03, Christian Brabandt wrote:
> > That has the advantage that the [list-gumpf] is gone not only from the
> > index, but also from the edit-headers in vim, when replying.
>
> It also has the disadvantage that the [list-gumpf] is gone not only
> from the index, but from the message entirely. Sometimes knowing by
> way of which list you received a particular message (especially in the
> distant past) is useful.
Here, procmail delivers list mail directly to a separate mailbox for
each list, so no confusion can arise. Anyone choosing instead the
high-entropy option of chucking all received mail into one disordered
hopper has created a rod for his own back. Do not expect sympathy for
poor choices.
The separate list mailboxes are presented in (.muttrc specified)
priority order by mutt, so if interruptions intervene, I've dealt with
the preferred lists, rather than an unsorted soup.
> Plus sometimes (e.g. if you're forwarding the message off list to a
> group of people) your recipients will want or need that info...
The list server puts it back on every post. Stop for a moment, and think
of a new post. It will not have the [list-id] pollution. Recipients of
list post lose nothing.
If off-list, the recipient can hopefully deal with a reply to his own
mail.
> The procmail solution is a bad one IMO.
Sometimes it's a question of perspective.
Erik
--
Do not do unto others as you would they should do unto you.
Their tastes may not be the same.
- George Bernard Shaw
