Dan Harkless wrote:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> 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.
>>
>> 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'm not sure what the original intent of repl -group was, but I like
it. I use "-cc all|me|whatever -nocc me" and "-group" in different
contexts to generate different headers . To me, this was one of those
things that would be doable with scripting, but nice to have
``builtin.'' Kinda like flist....
In this message, I used "repl -cc all -nocc me -group" to get
>Subject: Re: problem with nmh's reply feature.
>In-Reply-To: Message from Dan Harkless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> of "Mon, 19 Apr 1999 19:06:16 PDT." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
in the headers.
Had I used "repl -cc all -nocc me" (basically, any combination of -cc
or -nocc without -group) , I would have gotten
>Subject: Re: problem with nmh's reply feature.
>In-reply-to: Message of Mon, 19 Apr 1999 19:06:16 PDT
in the headers. Yes, I could have futzed around with making
aliases/scripts that called "repl -cc all -nocc me -form grouprepl".
But I probably could have made a script to act like flist as well.
WL
