Shawn McMahon writes:
> IMHO, if you hit "list-reply" and Mutt doesn't recognize a list, it
> should assume you know what you're talking about, and pop up the "To:"
> address as a "yes/no" default. Then if you say no, it should cycle
> through the Cc: addresses until you say "yes" or "q".
>
> Alternately, just do the "To:", and ignore the "Cc:", because people
> shouldn't be Cc:ing lists. But that may just be me.
Either one would be fine (the latter is probably the most useful).
Mike Schiraldi writes:
> If a message said:
>
> From: Alice
> To: A list
>
> the request is for a command which will initiate a reply to "A list" but not
> Alice.
Exactly!
> However, in both cases i'd say you should just group-reply to everyone, and
> if the recipient is annoyed at getting two copies of the message, they
> should just use the one-line procmail/formmail solution to remove duplicate
> messages. And if their OS doesn't support that, it's a great incentive to
> upgrade to one which does. :)
Believe me, I would love to see everyone upgrade to "an OS that
supports Procmail"!
But do you really think that telling them "I'm sending you two copies,
and suggesting that you change your OS and then learn how to use
procmail and write your own filter script to detect duplicates,
because the mailer I'm using on Linux doesn't know how to reply to
a mailing list" is likely to be very persuasive toward that goal?
Personally, I'd rather be able to tell them "Hey, look at the great
reply mode my mailer has -- I don't even have to edit the headers
after replying! Wouldn't you like to be able to do that yourself?"
So I gather that mutt currently has no way of doing this. If I add
one, is there any chance it might make it back into the source tree?
Or are people really opposed to this on principle?
...Akkana
