Will Yardley (2025/04/01 13:58 -0700): > On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 09:15:19PM +0200, Sébastien Hinderer wrote: > > Apparently the content of my index_format varies from folder to folder. > > I also use %Z but I think, after having studied Mutt's documentation, > > that I do understand the problem. The manual says: > > > > %L If an address in the “To:” or “Cc:” header field matches an address > > defined by the users subscribe” command, this displays "To > > <list-name>", otherwise the same as %F. > > > > So my understanding is that it's because the list was Bcc'ed that it > > doesn't work. > > Makes sense. I saw the same thing when I was poking at it last night. I > thought you'd mentioned that before and ruled it out?
I did mention it yes, but since, at list for this list, there are listheaders and in addition List-Post contains exactly the same address, it did not feel unrealistic to me to hope that mutt would also take the headers into account. I even came to wonder why the presence of such headers couldn't enough for Mutt do show the 'L'. Even if not the default behavior, I wouln't mind having to set a variable to get that. > Short of rewriting the headers, not sure if there's a good fix for the > case where the list is BCCd, at least as things work now. Yeah that's where I am, too. Sure, rewriting the headers would make me more independent, but my current workflow is to use mutt to read mails in Imap. I did use procmail in the past, but I came to the conclusion that if the e-mails are sorted automatically then there are mailboxes I simply never visit. That's why I came to aim for something else where the e-mails are not sorted, so that all of them have an equal chence ot receive my attention, but then I have tools to make the sorting quick. One other possibility would be to transfer mails to a server and do the headers rewriting there, but that starts to feel like a lot of bureaucracy, at least to me. > In general, I think the most typical use cases are the ones where the > list is CCd or BCCd, and maybe Mutt also does this to keep the behavior > consistent with the behavior of how the index displays mail "to" your > own addresses? Possibly, I must say I am clueless. Gratitude for your invsetigation and happy to read any additional comment from anyone. Seb.
