* Jeremy Kitchen <kitc...@kitchen.io> [02-27-13 15:15]: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:55:15PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > > > Responding to "list" mail *should* be to the "list" unless op has > > > *specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical > > > and inefficient. > > > > Here's where I disagree. There have been many, many times when I > > wanted to send a private reply to a mailing list post. Usually it's > > because I have a remark that's not related to the post, per se. > > Neither the mailing list software, nor my client software, should get > > in the way of me replying however I damn well feel like replying. > > and I like how mutt does this. You have MFT set to mutt-users@mutt.org. > I hit 'g' and got that. > > If I'd hit 'r' instead, it would have gone straight to you.
And you do realize that "g", group-reply, is not the correct way to respond to mailing list posts using mutt. The *correct* manner is "L", list-reply, but pre-supposes you correctly maintain your ~/.muttrc and/or the list software provides the correct headers And all list-software does not *insert* MFT headers, and the MFT header is not necessary for proper list responses. Remember that it is *you* posting and *your* responsibility for content, not the software you employe or the list-server software. Do you bother to look at the headers for the msgs you post or respond? -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net
