[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Was there a discussion of this behavior change that I've missed?
Shortly after it was made, yeah.
> I was about to update a few different mh front ends when I decided that it
> made more sense just to change repl so that certain -cc options implied
> -group.
>
> The code change was trivial, and not amazingly tested:
>
> diff -r1.1 repl.c
> 420c420
> < if (groupreply)
> ---
> > if (groupreply || (cccc && ccme))
>
> I'm wondering if something like this shouldn't be the default, but I
> joined nmh-workers soon after I heard that the development was being
> handed off. I'm not sure what the new dev format is right now.
>
> Opinions?
If you're going to make -cc imply -group, one wonders why -group should
exist at all, since -cc was the original way to do this...
Richard's work on nmh has been a wonderful gift to the community, but the
-group thing has been frustrating to many people. He never really explained
(to my satisfaction, at least) why the -group behavior split from MH was a
good thing (especially in light of all the MH front ends that otherwise
would have worked perfectly with nmh).
I don't know about other people, but I would be in favor of making -group a
no-op (so as not to break any front ends that have been updated to use it)
and putting the -cc / -nocc behavior back the way it was in MH. Who knows
how many former MH users have given up on nmh because the Cc: behavior
appeared to be broken?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Harkless | To prevent SPAM contamination, please do not post this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | private email address to the USENET or WWW. Thank you.
