> 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.
Interesting; so you like -group because it lets you easily switch
between two different component files (of course, adding the `-form'
switch seems only marginally easier than adding `-group').
>From my perspective, while I rely on the fact that I can run mh
commands from the shell, I typically do my mail reading in a
monolithic-style MH front-end (typically, mh-e, but I also try to
worry somewhat about xmh and exmh).
I'm wondering what people think these front ends should do to support
the concept of this hardcoded special case way to change the
components file. Laziness/least surprise indicate to me that the
safe, default way to go would be to leave in the components-changing
functionality of `-group' but reinstate the behavior of `-cc all', for
example (I really don't see how a user could see the current `-cc all'
behavior as anything but a bug -- that's my bias.). The front-end
could ask, of course, but that way lies madness.
To summarize:
I'm now asking two questions:
* what do people think should be the default?
* what do people think we should suggest to FE maintainers to support
this new feature?
chad
