Paul wrote: > david wrote: > > I wrote: > > > > > Paul wrote: > > > > > > > i get bitten by this several times a year -- perhaps there's a > > > > way to configure around it. > > > > > > > > i often reply to my own mailing list posts. when i do so, mh > > > > attempts to reply to me, cc'ing the original recipient (i.e., > > > > the list). but i think because i'm both the sender and the > > > > recipient, the To: header ends up missing entirely. for example, > > > > here's what the draft looks like if i start to reply to an old > > > > message i sent to this list: > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] sync'ing an mh mailstore between two > > machines? > > > > cc: [email protected] > > > > In-reply-to: <[email protected]> > > > > References: <[email protected]> > > <200805211914.m4LJExTY0> > > > > Fcc: outbox > > > > -------- > > > > > > > > needless to say, if i don't notice, and simply send the message, > > > > it causes great confusion. > > > > > > > > the command i use to reply to a list looks like this, after > > > > expanding my wrapper scripts: > > > > > > > > repl -cc to -cc cc -form form.repl.usual <msgnumber> > > > > > > > > the contents of form.repl.usual look like this: > > > > > > > > %(lit)%(formataddr %<{reply-to}%|%<{from}%|%{sender}%>%>)\ > > > > %<(nonnull)%(void(width))%(putaddr To: )\n%>\ > > > > %<{subject}Subject: Re: %{subject}\n%>\ > > > > %(lit)%(formataddr{to})%(formataddr{cc})%(formataddr(me))\ > > > > %<(nonnull)%(void(width))%(putaddr cc: )\n%>\ > > > > %; > > > > %; Make References: and In-reply-to: fields for threading. > > > > %; Use (void), (trim) and (putstr) to eat trailing whitespace. > > > > %; > > > > %<{message-id}In-reply-to: %{message-id}\n%>\ > > > > %<{message-id}References: \ > > > > %<{references}%(void{references})%(trim)%(putstr) %>\ > > > > %(void{message-id})%(trim)%(putstr)\n%>\ > > > > Reply-to: [email protected] > > > > Fcc: outbox > > > > -------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i've just done a scan of the repl and mh-format man pages to see > > > > what might cause, or fix, this, but i'm missing it if it's there. > > > > > > > > any ideas? > > > > > > I add -cc me when replying to my own messages and suppress > > > the second copy (see below) by using -query. Inconvenient > > > and of course doesn't solve the problem. But maybe it gives > > > a clue on how to fix it: -cc me (or -cc all) restores the > > > To: header. But that seems like an unintended side effect: > > > I don't see why -cc should affect To:. > > > > > > And they also add my login name, even if my reply address is > > > in my Alternate-Mailboxes. I don't need two copies of the > > > message. > > > > That's because I had %(formataddr(me)) in my reply form > > (and so do you). Removing that got rid of the reply to my > > login name. > > > > So, adding -cc me (or -cc all) should get what you want. > > at the expense of the extra cc to me, right? (unless i use -query)
Right, for messages that Cc: you. For messages that you sent, there won't be an extra cc to you if you remove %(formataddr(me)). > > Or, we could hack the code as shown below. That keeps > > the To: header to self, unless "-nocc me" was specified. > > It keeps the confusion between cc and To:, but at this > > point I don't think that's worth fixing. > > did you attach the right patch? i'm having trouble seeing > that this will result in any change in behavior. You're right, that patch doesn't change anything. And at this point I don't think that the code should be changed. (Or I should say, that I should change it.) David _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
