On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 02:47:45PM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: > On 13May2010 09:53, Udo Hortian <[email protected]> wrote: > | I tend to use "reply" accidentally instead of "group reply" if I reply to > | messages sent to a group of persons. Is there a way to be asked by mutt > | if one wants to use "group reply" instead of "reply" in case that there > | is more than one recipient in the mail one is answering? > > I tend to always group-reply and then eyeball the list of to/cc in case > it should change. If you have accidents you could map 'r' to group reply > instead of plain reply. I personally feel that since group-reply is the > same as plain-reply when there's only one person in the to/cc, I never > reach for plain reply at all, just adjust headers if necessary later. > > I know that doesn't answer your actual question; I can only think of > horrible hooks that look for commas in the to/cc or something, and still > don't have a way to ask a question anyway. I also thought about the option to use "g" instead of "r", but it's also dangerous if one does does pay attention to the list of recipients.
What does others think? Would not it be possible to implement such a feature? I would like to propose it as a my wish.
