On Mar 15, Shawn McMahon [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Dave Pearson wrote: > > > > Perhaps I'm missing something here but I don't use <list-reply> to tell mutt > > that an email is from a mailing list, I use <list-reply> to tell mutt that I > > want to respond to the list it was from (instead of to the author of the > > email, or whatever). > > Uh huh. And we're discussing making Mutt handle that without you having > to put two statements in the config file for every list you're on, just > for the ones that are too hard to figure out programmatically.
You only need one "statement" in the config file per list. 'subscribe' and 'lists' are two different but related commands. One is for lists you are subscribed to, the other is for lists you may see mail from/send mail to but are not actually subscribed to. Which of the two you use to tell mutt about a list determines how things like the MFT header are generated. (If you're subscribed, you don't want your address in MFT. If you're not subscribed, you do want your address in MFT.) Note that this distinction is another piece that would be missed if we just relied on the list headers. Also, FWIW, it isn't even one "statement" per list. You can put as many lists as you want on one line, and the entries themselves are patterns matched against the address, so one entry can match multiple lists if you write it that way. > I maintain that a sufficient percentage of them are NOT too hard to > figure out that it's worth doing. If you want to see this, you probably need to produce a patch that does it in a quality way. I haven't heard any of the developers interested in changing how it works now.
msg25572/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
