Re: group-reply (ctrl-g) only replies To: but not Cc: ?

[HawKing]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:55:42 -0600
 wrote:

> I' m not sure if this is supposed to be default behavior, but when I
> attempt to group reply to an email, only those addresses previously
> listed as To: are included in the response, and not those Cc'ed. Is
> this a bug, something I may be suppressing, or something to enable? I
> have not been able to find an answer anywhere online. 
> 
> Mutt -v
> 8.1.1 20180712 (Red Hat 8.1.1-5)
> 
> Thanks!
> 


Please ignore this stupid mutt newbie question that took me hours to
figure out... Just realized that it's working as expected, but wasn't
asking about cc's. 

group-reply (ctrl-g) only replies To: but not Cc: ?

[HawKing]

I' m not sure if this is supposed to be default behavior, but when I
attempt to group reply to an email, only those addresses previously
listed as To: are included in the response, and not those Cc'ed. Is
this a bug, something I may be suppressing, or something to enable? I
have not been able to find an answer anywhere online. 

Mutt -v
8.1.1 20180712 (Red Hat 8.1.1-5)

Thanks!

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Derek Martin]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:20:57PM +0100, Mihai Lazarescu wrote:
> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 17:56:51 -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> 
> >The majority of the community said nothing at all, which
> >suggests (as I suggested) that most people don't actually give
> >a $#@! about this, as well they shouldn't. I'll note that in
> >response to Kevin's query, two people (Ariis and Christiansen)
> >said preserving the To: line was sensible, and three people
> >(Zimmerman, Yardley, and myself) said it seems pointless.
> >There were no other opinions provided.
> 
> For some posters here I probably don't fit in the "people" category,
> since I made clear that both behaviours make very much sense and the
> user, not MUA, should decide which and where to use.

No, sorry, this was simply oversight on my part.

> First reason, by design mutt has little appeal where the To:/Cc:
> distinction is likely to matter, i.e., organizations with layered
> structures.  That's because such structures:

I think this idea is a mistake.  I use Mutt in just such a corporate
environment and it does not hinder me in any way.  And FWIW, for the
nearly 15 years I've worked here, absolutely no one has come begging
me to change the way I address my messages.  It's largely pointless to
care about this since users WILL NOT follow it uniformly, and once the
convention is broken on your thread, it's permanently broken, since
the overwhelming majority of users simply won't care enough to even
notice.

Besides, if you're in the camp that says that USUALLY the respondent
is the primary recipient, but SOMETIMES it isn't, what do you want
Mutt to do here?  Ask you every time?  That seems tedious and
cumbersome.

The fact is, at the time the RFC was published, nearly all clients
behaved like Mutt does today (including Netscape Mail--Thunderbird
didn't exist yet).  Outlook was--as usual--the largest exception, but
Outlook has always done things wrong.  [Curiously, Exchange web client
currently does work like Mutt.]  I can't say for sure why the author
decided to buck the trend and go soft on this, but I can guess:  He
worked for Qualcomm (they're named on the RFC), who published Eudora.
Probably they thought it should be done the other way--most likely to
be compatible with Outlook--but had to acknowledge that everyone else
in the world did it the way Mutt does when they wrote the RFC.  Eudora
died in 2006, and Qualcomm turned its focus to a client based on
Thunderbird.  Then, assuming my theory is correct, it's not a big
surprise that Thunderbird eventually adopted this approach.  Most
likely the Eudora developers would have moved to the Thunderbird team
after Eudora's final demise, and brought with them their various ideas
and prejudices.

RFCs are not always free of corporate agenda, and the late 90's and
early 2000's were a time when that was especially rampant, though
Microsoft was the usual culprit.

> Second reason, mutt project seems to be very conservative. Hence, if
> something is not proven to be clearly broken (the code or the
> reasoning behind it), then it is very unlikely to "outweigh the
> risks" of most potential changes.

This is not nearly as true as it used to be.  Kevin, and Brendan
before him, have done (I think) a good job at balancing progress 
vs. change risk.  He may still make a change here, and he's well
within his right to do so.

As a final note, the bug poster has actually agreed with me and
requested the bug be closed.

-- 
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.



pgpBBsfeJgkrS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Kevin J. McCarthy]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:56:51PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
The majority of the community said nothing at all, which suggests (as 
I suggested) that most people don't actually give a $#@! about this, 
as well they shouldn't.


I'm pretty happy with the turnout.  I've re-read the discussion and 
arguments, and I appreciate everyone's time to voice their opinion.


In the end, I still believe both modes have merit depending upon the 
situation.  The default most certainly won't change, but I do plan on 
adding a new function.


But FWIW Kevin isn't the only one with his sleeves rolled up--there are 
other maintainers, and beyond that there are other contributors, myself 
included, albeit infrequently.


Vincent is the only other semi-active team member.  Patches have been 
ticking up since the move to gitlab, but let's be honest, if I stepped 
away things would grind to a halt.  I don't do this full time, so 
development moves at the pace I can sustain, which is somewhat slow.


Other maintainers to share the load would be a good thing for the 
project.  For those who share the culture and goals of Mutt, please 
consider that a "help wanted" sign.


--
Kevin J. McCarthy
GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C  5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2018-12-13 17:56, Derek Martin wrote:

> The majority of the community said nothing at all, which suggests (as
> I suggested) that most people don't actually give a $#@! about this,
> as well they shouldn't.  I'll note that in response to Kevin's query,
> two people (Ariis and Christiansen) said preserving the To: line was
> sensible, and three people (Zimmerman, Yardley, and myself) said it
> seems pointless.  There were no other opinions provided.

My original one line message may have allowed different interpretations,
so here I clarify: Derek's interpretation is correct, i.e. I see no need
to change mutt's current behavior.

-- 
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists
which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[nunojsilva]

On 2018-12-13, Derek Martin wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 01:18:04PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
>
>> Then the thoughts of the majority of the community bear
>> consideration, especially when based on reason. 
>
> The majority of the community said nothing at all, which suggests (as
> I suggested) that most people don't actually give a $#@! about this,
> as well they shouldn't.

Depending on the definitions of "community" and "most people", there's
also the problem that an undefined number of mutt users might not be
reading this list at all.

> I'll note that in response to Kevin's query,
> two people (Ariis and Christiansen) said preserving the To: line was
> sensible, and three people (Zimmerman, Yardley, and myself) said it
> seems pointless.  There were no other opinions provided.

Whatever ends up being done, I'd advise against *changing* the default
behaviour, either keep just the current behaviour or add an alternative,
but keep it disabled by default.

But I'm just a user.

-- 
Nuno Silva

Re: [Mutt] Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Mihai Lazarescu]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 17:48:14 -0600, Derek Martin wrote:


On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:08:16PM +0100, Mihai T. Lazarescu wrote:

> >If a reply is sent to a message that has destination fields, it
> >is often desirable to send a copy of the reply to all of the
> >recipients of the message, in addition to the author.  When
> >such a reply is formed, addresses in the "To:" and "Cc:" fields
> >of the original message MAY appear in the "Cc:" field of the
> >reply, since these are normally secondary recipients of the
> >reply.

OK, so the author JUST TOLD YOU that 1. Cc: is for secondary
recipients,


Which is what I always agreed to.


and 2. on a reply, the other recipients in the To: and Cc:
fields are secondary recipients.


"Normally" does not mean "always".


It follows logically that therefore,
you SHOULD (in both the English sense and the RFC sense) put the other
recipients in the Cc: line.  This is basic logic.


Not in RFC 2822 (or RFC 5322, see below) authors' logic. 
Even though the RFC authors consider "normally" (not always) 
the other recipients as secondary, even in that case they merely 
concede (as in "MAY", truly optional in RFC lingo) the MUA the 
derogation from the implicit keep-them-where-they-were rule.


As I said, mutt provides an RFC derogation as the only available 
option.  I also said that this is perfectly acceptable from a 
project that is free as in beer and as in change-it-yourself. 
But it's not because it's logic to behave this way.



But given the author's reasoning, the choice
of "MAY" is again logically inconsistent.  By choosing "MAY" it's not
*technically* a recommendation, but in name only, since it just told
you that exactly that is how the fields are meant to be used.

Basically, "MAY" here is an unfortunate mistake--But the RFC contains
more words than just "MAY" or "SHOULD", and you mustn't pay attention
only to that, ignoring everything else it says.  The context matters,
and the rest of the context is clearly a recommendation for that
behavior.


See that these so-easily-dismissed "mistakes" have been 
preserved in later incarnations of the RFC 2822, e.g., RFC 
5322 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#page-23


Best,
Mihai

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Mihai Lazarescu]

On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 17:56:51 -0600, Derek Martin wrote:


The majority of the community said nothing at all, which
suggests (as I suggested) that most people don't actually give
a $#@! about this, as well they shouldn't. I'll note that in
response to Kevin's query, two people (Ariis and Christiansen)
said preserving the To: line was sensible, and three people
(Zimmerman, Yardley, and myself) said it seems pointless.
There were no other opinions provided.


For some posters here I probably don't fit in the "people" 
category, since I made clear that both behaviours make very 
much sense and the user, not MUA, should decide which and where 
to use.


That being said, it's obvious that a +1 does not change 
meaningfully any stats or decisions.


Even more, considering mutt design objectives and project 
evolution, IMO this whole discussion was and is pointless after 
the first few fact-finding messages, for two major reasons.


First reason, by design mutt has little appeal where the To:/Cc: 
distinction is likely to matter, i.e., organizations with 
layered structures.  That's because such structures:


1. tend to have a non-mutt IT-supported (or even -enforced) MUA;

2. tend to exchange messages with HTML formatting and/or 
embedded images, for which mutt, by definition, does not excel.


Instead, where the organizational layers are blurred or absent, 
people tend to discard also the distinctions To:/Cc: and even 
prevalently use unadorned text too communicate.


Second reason, mutt project seems to be very conservative. 
Hence, if something is not proven to be clearly broken (the 
code or the reasoning behind it), then it is very unlikely to 
"outweigh the risks" of most potential changes.


That reminds me of TeX: 
http://www.tug.org/tetex/html/texfaq/faq_1.html#QU13 which 
I very much appreciate, too (the program, not decision). 
Unlike TeX, mutt has much limited extension support, but is 
forked with lots of additions.


For those interested, the original To:/Cc: distribution can 
be semi-automatically preserved: copy-paste the To:/Cc: fields 
of the incoming message from viewer in place of the whole Cc: 
field and its list in the editor (I assume edit_headers=yes). 
The resulting two To: fields are automatically merged when 
quitting the editor.


Cheers,
Mihai

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Derek Martin]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 01:18:04PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 11.12.18 17:52, Derek Martin wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:37:02PM +, Nuno Silva wrote:
> > > > Yes, I did not think I needed to say this explicity, but it also
> > > > explains why:  Because that usage is the one that corresponds to the
> > > > stated purpose of those fields.  As such it is the obvious, and should
> > > > be preferred, way to use them on replies.  Using the fields the way
> > > > they are intended to be used, to me, adheres to the principle of least
> > > > surprise.
> > > 
> > > Can't what is the least surprising to you be more surprising to somebody
> > > else?
> > 
> > In general?  Of course.  But not in this particular context, no.  The
> > RFC is the spec, and being logically consistent with the spec is the
> > only "least surprising" that matters.
> 
> May I humbly suggest that what matters most is what Kevin thinks, as
> he's the one with his sleeves rolled up.

You may suggest whatever you like, humbly or not.  But FWIW Kevin
isn't the only one with his sleeves rolled up--there are other
maintainers, and beyond that there are other contributors, myself
included, albeit infrequently.  But the position I'm advocating
requires no sleeves to be rolled up--no action whatsoever, so I'm not
sure that's relevant.  Though, as the primary maintainer, as I've
already said, Kevin certainly may do whatever he chooses.

My role here, as someone who's been around for a very long time,
usually is to remind people both that certain choices were made
intentionally and with good reason, and to weigh potential changes and
their inherent risks against the actual benefit they will provide.
I'm doing both of those things in this thread.  As you hint, the
decision ultimately is Kevin's, and I'm perfectly happy with that.

> Then the thoughts of the majority of the community bear
> consideration, especially when based on reason. 

The majority of the community said nothing at all, which suggests (as
I suggested) that most people don't actually give a $#@! about this,
as well they shouldn't.  I'll note that in response to Kevin's query,
two people (Ariis and Christiansen) said preserving the To: line was
sensible, and three people (Zimmerman, Yardley, and myself) said it
seems pointless.  There were no other opinions provided.

> Last and least come a sole opinion based on taking an RFC as
> evidence, then rewriting it when it fails to support an entrenched
> inflexible view.

Fortunately no such thing happened.  No one rewrote the RFC and it
explicitly supports the entrenched view, even if half-heartedly in
deference to existing mailers that do it differently.

-- 
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.



pgpVikiyEKWXp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Derek Martin]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 06:41:17PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 06:23:11PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:51:08AM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> >>But the "reason" supplied by the RFC, which I snipped to emphasize,
> >>is a bit weak.
> >
> >I'm not sure why you think that.  You, just now, responded to
> >something I said.
> 
> I responded to your message, but I replied to mutt-users.  That's
> the reason for the  function, because the primary
> recipient was and continues to be the mailing list.

You used Mutt's list-reply feature, which still most mailers don't
have.  As for the list being the primary recipient, a demonstration to
the contrary:

Imagine you're standing in a group of people, and someone says
something to the group. If you respond to what that person says, do
you face that person?  I promise you, unless you're neuro-atypical,
you most likely do, because it is that person you are primarily
addressing; and since it is, it is natural to address them directly.
even if it is a group conversation.  It's no different if you're
participating in a mailing list, except that instead of face-to-face,
the conversation is electronic, and your circle of friends doesn't
have a Cc: line.

The whole reason to have a mailing list:  One person asks a question
or posts some info, responses are specifically for them, but may be of
interest to others.  They (the list members) are being kept in the
loop.  It's automatic Cc:.  It's a clever hack to prevent you from
having to manually manage the recipient list each time you want to
message a group of people which may (or may not) be interested in what
you're messaging about.  

Mutt evolved functionality to deal with this, and a small handful of
other mailers copied it.  A clever hack on top of a clever hack.
Even now, most major mailers don't give you that option--you'd need to
use group reply, which would still put the sender to whom you're
replying in the To: line, and put the list address in the Cc: line.

> If you convert the mailing list concept to a group of "To"
> recipients instead, the same logic can apply.  A sends an email to
> B,C,D as a group conversation, "Where should we have lunch today".
> B may respond to A's email, but her desire is to reply equally to
> all the other primary (to) recipients.  Her group-reply ought to put
> A,C,D in the To field.  This continues the indication that it's a
> group conversation whose primary recipients still include C and D.

I think you have that backward--it's the mailing list that has been
converted from the traditional method of addressing recipients, as an
exceptional case.  But sans any list-reply function, replies instantly
revert to traditional addressing on all mailers, including those which
preserve the To: line.

> I believe this pattern of conversation is more common now-a-days,
> and that it deserves support in the MUA.

It was no less common in the early days of e-mail, and I would imagine
it was actually a higher percentage of messages that were used this
way, since Internet mail was mostly used by the folks who were
creating the Internet, to discuss how to create the Internet...  This
is not new.

-- 
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.



pgpNBkBsybyHA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Mutt] Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Mihai Lazarescu]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 18:23:11 -0600, Derek Martin wrote:


On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:51:08AM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 05:29:01PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> >  [...]since these are normally secondary recipients of the reply.
> >
> >It recomments Mutt's current behavior, for precisely the reasons I
> >gave in support of it.
>
> Okay, that's a good argument for keeping the default behavior as-is.
>
> But the "reason" supplied by the RFC, which I snipped to emphasize,
> is a bit weak.

I'm not sure why you think that.  You, just now, responded to
something I said.  Without the thing I said you have no purpose in
replying to the message.  Therefore principally, inherently, it is me
that you are responding to... no one else said the thing you're
responding to, only me.  I am the only principle recipient of your
message.  Everyone else who is a recipient, inherently, you are just
keeping in the loop, because they may be interested in your follow-up
to my message.  That's exactly the stated purpose of the Cc: line.
That is a fact, and it's a fact your mailer can easily deal with.


Both behaviours are useful, for distinct use cases.  An example:

1. Incoming: manager-to-team members, with team members in To: 
  + some recipients from aux services in Cc:.


  Replies from team members very likely should have only the 
  manager in To: and the rest in Cc:.


2. Incoming: manager-to-managers all at same level and all in 
  To: + some aux recipients in Cc: (e.g., secretaries)


  Replies from other managers should preserve the incoming 
  To:/Cc: distribution.


Technically, To: and Cc: deliver the message the same way. 
So the RFC could have discarded Cc: altogether.


However, Cc: is there exactly because of the carbon-copy era 
distinction between primary and secondary recipients, which 
matters in some use cases.


If and when the Cc:/To: distinction matters and how the 
recipients should be distributed between these fields is only 
environment- and user-specific.


The RFC or other static rules cannot determine it universally.

That's why the RFC and other MUAs allow both behaviours.

Mihai

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Will Yardley]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 06:41:17PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> If you convert the mailing list concept to a group of "To" recipients
> instead, the same logic can apply.  A sends an email to B,C,D as a group
> conversation, "Where should we have lunch today".  B may respond to A's
> email, but her desire is to reply equally to all the other primary (to)
> recipients.  Her group-reply ought to put A,C,D in the To field.  This
> continues the indication that it's a group conversation whose primary
> recipients still include C and D.
> 
> I believe this pattern of conversation is more common now-a-days, and that
> it deserves support in the MUA.

I _think_ I understand what's being asked / suggested here. To me, it
seems mostly cosmetic (and adjustable if you're willing to move them
around in your editor).

I guess I kind of have to agree with the folks who think that this
doesn't really need to be configurable, and in fact, making it
configurable might cause more confusion than it solves?

w

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Kevin J. McCarthy]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 06:23:11PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:51:08AM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:

But the "reason" supplied by the RFC, which I snipped to emphasize,
is a bit weak.


I'm not sure why you think that.  You, just now, responded to
something I said.


I responded to your message, but I replied to mutt-users.  That's the 
reason for the  function, because the primary recipient was 
and continues to be the mailing list.


If you convert the mailing list concept to a group of "To" recipients 
instead, the same logic can apply.  A sends an email to B,C,D as a group 
conversation, "Where should we have lunch today".  B may respond to A's 
email, but her desire is to reply equally to all the other primary (to) 
recipients.  Her group-reply ought to put A,C,D in the To field.  This 
continues the indication that it's a group conversation whose primary 
recipients still include C and D.


I believe this pattern of conversation is more common now-a-days, and 
that it deserves support in the MUA.


--
Kevin J. McCarthy
GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C  5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Erik Christiansen]

On 11.12.18 17:52, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:37:02PM +, Nuno Silva wrote:
> > > Yes, I did not think I needed to say this explicity, but it also
> > > explains why:  Because that usage is the one that corresponds to the
> > > stated purpose of those fields.  As such it is the obvious, and should
> > > be preferred, way to use them on replies.  Using the fields the way
> > > they are intended to be used, to me, adheres to the principle of least
> > > surprise.
> > 
> > Can't what is the least surprising to you be more surprising to somebody
> > else?
> 
> In general?  Of course.  But not in this particular context, no.  The
> RFC is the spec, and being logically consistent with the spec is the
> only "least surprising" that matters.

May I humbly suggest that what matters most is what Kevin thinks, as
he's the one with his sleeves rolled up. Then the thoughts of the
majority of the community bear consideration, especially when based on
reason. Last and least come a sole opinion based on taking an RFC as
evidence, then rewriting it when it fails to support an entrenched
inflexible view.

But full points for doggedness. ;-)

Erik

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Derek Martin]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:51:08AM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 05:29:01PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> >  [...]since these are normally secondary recipients of the reply.
> >
> >It recomments Mutt's current behavior, for precisely the reasons I
> >gave in support of it.
> 
> Okay, that's a good argument for keeping the default behavior as-is.
> 
> But the "reason" supplied by the RFC, which I snipped to emphasize,
> is a bit weak.  

I'm not sure why you think that.  You, just now, responded to
something I said.  Without the thing I said you have no purpose in
replying to the message.  Therefore principally, inherently, it is me
that you are responding to... no one else said the thing you're
responding to, only me.  I am the only principle recipient of your
message.  Everyone else who is a recipient, inherently, you are just
keeping in the loop, because they may be interested in your follow-up
to my message.  That's exactly the stated purpose of the Cc: line.
That is a fact, and it's a fact your mailer can easily deal with.

You can concoct all sorts of other reasons to put additional people on
the To: line.  But they have nothing to do with who the principle
recipient of the message is, and as such they have nothing to do with
the defined purpose of the To: line.

[It should be noted that at this point I'm arguing purely for the sake
of the argument itself, for the satisfaction of principle and logic,
and no other reason.  I object to adding any code to Mutt to allow for
this purely on the basis of pragmatism: I mostly think people who care
about this are being silly and it's not worth even a line of code--but
if you really want to add it, you should go right ahead and do that.
But if you want to argue what is RIGHT, I'll assure you that my
positions are nearly always very well researched and thought out, and
I'll defend them--without malice--to the death.  Right up until
someone actually proves me wrong. =8^)]

-- 
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.



pgpboYfeuOAAI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Derek Martin]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:37:02PM +, Nuno Silva wrote:
> > Yes, I did not think I needed to say this explicity, but it also
> > explains why:  Because that usage is the one that corresponds to the
> > stated purpose of those fields.  As such it is the obvious, and should
> > be preferred, way to use them on replies.  Using the fields the way
> > they are intended to be used, to me, adheres to the principle of least
> > surprise.
> 
> Can't what is the least surprising to you be more surprising to somebody
> else?

In general?  Of course.  But not in this particular context, no.  The
RFC is the spec, and being logically consistent with the spec is the
only "least surprising" that matters.

[There is of course the case where the spec is logically inconsistent
with itself.  That's another matter.]

-- 
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.



pgpgaNZ8kt94D.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Derek Martin]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:08:16PM +0100, Mihai T. Lazarescu wrote:
> > It recomments Mutt's current behavior
> 
> I disagree on "recommends".  Actually "may", as modal verb, is used to
> express *possibility* or used to ask or give *permission* (or is used
> to make a *suggestion* or suggest a *possibility* in a polite way):
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/may

Yes, I'm well aware of what the word "may" means, both in English and
in RFCs.  I've been doing this a very long time.  The choice of "MAY"
is essentially wrong... [Don't worry, I'll get to it...]

> Either way, in the RFC it expresses an option, an acceptable alternate
> behavior to the (implicit, because it's obvious) behavior

Obvious in the sense that it is the only possible alternative to a
group reply...  Removing the other recipients would be the other
alternative but then it wouldn't be a group reply.

It is a recommendation in that it points out the reason to do this is
that it matches the stated purpose of the To: and Cc: fields, which it
just explained 4 paragraphs ago.  Consider:

> >When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
> >authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:"
> >field) or mailboxes specified in the "Reply-To:" field (if it
> >exists) MAY appear in the "To:" field of the reply since these
> >would normally be the primary recipients of the reply.  

Would you agree that no one disagrees with this?  Where else would you
put them?  Nothing else makes sense here.  So why is this "MAY" rather
than "SHOULD" or "MUST?"  The choice of "MAY" here is, sadly,
logically inconsistent.  And while it is technically possible for a
message to have more than one author, in general there is only ever
one From: address and on replies it is always placed on the To: line
by every mailer ever.  Likewise:

> >If a reply is sent to a message that has destination fields, it
> >is often desirable to send a copy of the reply to all of the
> >recipients of the message, in addition to the author.  When
> >such a reply is formed, addresses in the "To:" and "Cc:" fields
> >of the original message MAY appear in the "Cc:" field of the
> >reply, since these are normally secondary recipients of the
> >reply.

OK, so the author JUST TOLD YOU that 1. Cc: is for secondary
recipients, and 2. on a reply, the other recipients in the To: and Cc:
fields are secondary recipients.  It follows logically that therefore,
you SHOULD (in both the English sense and the RFC sense) put the other
recipients in the Cc: line.  This is basic logic.

So again, why is this "MAY" and not "SHOULD" or "MUST?"  Mostly, I
think, because it's known that some other mailers don't follow this,
and the RFC author didn't want to effectively retroactively declare
them to be out of spec.  But given the author's reasoning, the choice
of "MAY" is again logically inconsistent.  By choosing "MAY" it's not
*technically* a recommendation, but in name only, since it just told
you that exactly that is how the fields are meant to be used.  

Basically, "MAY" here is an unfortunate mistake--But the RFC contains
more words than just "MAY" or "SHOULD", and you mustn't pay attention
only to that, ignoring everything else it says.  The context matters,
and the rest of the context is clearly a recommendation for that
behavior.

-- 
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.



pgp3MhkPhz80U.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[nunojsilva]

On 2018-12-11, Derek Martin wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:39:31PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
>> On 10.12.18 17:29, Derek Martin wrote:
>> >When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
>> >authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:"
>> >field) or mailboxes specified in the "Reply-To:" field (if it
>> >exists) MAY appear in the "To:" field of the reply since these
>> >would normally be the primary recipients of the reply.  If a reply
>> >is sent to a message that has destination fields, it is often
>> >desirable to send a copy of the reply to all of the recipients of
>> >the message, in addition to the author.  When such a reply is
>> >formed, addresses in the "To:" and "Cc:" fields of the original
>> >message MAY appear in the "Cc:" field of the reply, since these are
>> >normally secondary recipients of the reply.
>> > 
>> > It recomments Mutt's current behavior, for precisely the reasons I
>> > gave in support of it.  The person who opened the ticket stated that
>> > the expected behavior is for the recipients in the To: field to be
>> > preserved, but the RFC clearly states otherwise.
>> 
>> It clearly states that it "MAY" be otherwise. 
>
> Yes, I did not think I needed to say this explicity, but it also
> explains why:  Because that usage is the one that corresponds to the
> stated purpose of those fields.  As such it is the obvious, and should
> be preferred, way to use them on replies.  Using the fields the way
> they are intended to be used, to me, adheres to the principle of least
> surprise.

Can't what is the least surprising to you be more surprising to somebody
else?

> It certainly has (clearly) always matched my personal
> expectation such that I've never given it a second thought.  But I
> still say it mostly doesn't, and shouldn't, matter in practical use.
>
> [I'd obviously prefer the RFC should say "SHOULD" instead of "MAY" but
> you get what you get when someone else does it for you.]

-- 
Nuno Silva

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Mihai Lazarescu]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 21:08:16 +0100, Mihai Lazarescu wrote:


On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:29 AM Derek Martin  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:31:28PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > Thread comment: It's OK to be unaware of the usefulness of RFC features,
> > but it does seem odd to pretend that they're not useful just because
> > it's only others who need them.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but for the sake of
> clarity about RFC features, here's what RFC 2822 says on the matter
> (3.6.3, paragraph 6):
>
>When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
>authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:"
>field) or mailboxes specified in the "Reply-To:" field (if it
>exists) MAY appear in the "To:" field of the reply since these
>would normally be the primary recipients of the reply.  If a reply
>is sent to a message that has destination fields, it is often
>desirable to send a copy of the reply to all of the recipients of
>the message, in addition to the author.  When such a reply is
>formed, addresses in the "To:" and "Cc:" fields of the original
>message MAY appear in the "Cc:" field of the reply, since these are
>normally secondary recipients of the reply.
>
> It recomments Mutt's current behavior

I disagree on "recommends".  Actually "may", as modal verb, is used to
express *possibility* or used to ask or give *permission* (or is used
to make a *suggestion* or suggest a *possibility* in a polite way):
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/may

Either way, in the RFC it expresses an option, an acceptable alternate
behavior to the (implicit, because it's obvious) behavior, which is to
preserve the distinction between Cc: and To:. Distinction which, BTW,
the same RFC states beyond doubt (see the relevant quote in my
previous message in thread).


Seems like I'm talking to myself, :-) but I just 
learned that RFC 2119 (thanks Francesco for the pointer) 
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt explains "Key words for 
use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels".  Specifically, 
RFC 2119 says the following about "MAY":


«5.  MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an 
item is truly optional.  One vendor may choose to include the 
item because a particular marketplace requires it or because 
the vendor feels that it enhances the product while another 
vendor may omit the same item.»


So mutt implements as default and mandatory a "truly optional" 
alternate behavior allowed by RFC 2822.  And for sure the 
said behavior is not the "recommended" one, as implied in 
this thread.


Mihai

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Mihai T. Lazarescu]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:29 AM Derek Martin  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:31:28PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > Thread comment: It's OK to be unaware of the usefulness of RFC features,
> > but it does seem odd to pretend that they're not useful just because
> > it's only others who need them.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but for the sake of
> clarity about RFC features, here's what RFC 2822 says on the matter
> (3.6.3, paragraph 6):
>
>When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
>authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:"
>field) or mailboxes specified in the "Reply-To:" field (if it
>exists) MAY appear in the "To:" field of the reply since these
>would normally be the primary recipients of the reply.  If a reply
>is sent to a message that has destination fields, it is often
>desirable to send a copy of the reply to all of the recipients of
>the message, in addition to the author.  When such a reply is
>formed, addresses in the "To:" and "Cc:" fields of the original
>message MAY appear in the "Cc:" field of the reply, since these are
>normally secondary recipients of the reply.
>
> It recomments Mutt's current behavior

I disagree on "recommends".  Actually "may", as modal verb, is used to
express *possibility* or used to ask or give *permission* (or is used
to make a *suggestion* or suggest a *possibility* in a polite way):
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/may

Either way, in the RFC it expresses an option, an acceptable alternate
behavior to the (implicit, because it's obvious) behavior, which is to
preserve the distinction between Cc: and To:. Distinction which, BTW,
the same RFC states beyond doubt (see the relevant quote in my
previous message in thread).

So, that "MAY" above just allows the MUA to *optionally* blur the
original assignment of recipients between To: and Cc:.  Not to enforce
a reassignment instead of the normal behaviour.

Beyond this, the fact that someone *should* change mutt is a
completely different discussion.  mutt is free as in "beer" and as in
"chage it yourself", and I completely respect that.

Mihai

P.S. FWIW, Thunderbird changed to preserve original assignment some
5-6 years ago.

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Kevin J. McCarthy]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 05:29:01PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but for the sake of 
clarity about RFC features, here's what RFC 2822 says on the matter 
(3.6.3, paragraph 6):


  [...]since these are normally secondary recipients of the reply.

It recomments Mutt's current behavior, for precisely the reasons I 
gave in support of it.


Okay, that's a good argument for keeping the default behavior as-is.

But the "reason" supplied by the RFC, which I snipped to emphasize, is a 
bit weak.  Certainly there are situations where the other "To" 
recipients might be secondary recipients of the reply.  However, there 
are also situations where they should be primary recipients of the 
reply.


In fact thinking over my own personal usage, preserving To recipients 
would be _my_ more common preference.  This is something I would like to 
have control over, not be subject to an RFC's thought on the situation.


Still, Mutt is such a beast to configure as it is, with so many 
configuration options, by default I lean heavily against adding more 
options unless it can be shown that there's significant benefit.


I'm also not a big fan of adding configuration variables for trivial 
things.  Perhaps in this case a new function is merited.  People could 
rebind 'g' if desired, or bind to a new key to have the choice when 
replying (e.g. 'G').


Just to get a good bikeshedding going, are there any suggestions?  What 
about ?


--
Kevin J. McCarthy
GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C  5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Derek Martin]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:39:31PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 10.12.18 17:29, Derek Martin wrote:
> >When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
> >authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:"
> >field) or mailboxes specified in the "Reply-To:" field (if it
> >exists) MAY appear in the "To:" field of the reply since these
> >would normally be the primary recipients of the reply.  If a reply
> >is sent to a message that has destination fields, it is often
> >desirable to send a copy of the reply to all of the recipients of
> >the message, in addition to the author.  When such a reply is
> >formed, addresses in the "To:" and "Cc:" fields of the original
> >message MAY appear in the "Cc:" field of the reply, since these are
> >normally secondary recipients of the reply.
> > 
> > It recomments Mutt's current behavior, for precisely the reasons I
> > gave in support of it.  The person who opened the ticket stated that
> > the expected behavior is for the recipients in the To: field to be
> > preserved, but the RFC clearly states otherwise.
> 
> It clearly states that it "MAY" be otherwise. 

Yes, I did not think I needed to say this explicity, but it also
explains why:  Because that usage is the one that corresponds to the
stated purpose of those fields.  As such it is the obvious, and should
be preferred, way to use them on replies.  Using the fields the way
they are intended to be used, to me, adheres to the principle of least
surprise.  It certainly has (clearly) always matched my personal
expectation such that I've never given it a second thought.  But I
still say it mostly doesn't, and shouldn't, matter in practical use.

[I'd obviously prefer the RFC should say "SHOULD" instead of "MAY" but
you get what you get when someone else does it for you.]

-- 
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.



pgpuPUtqXdzcR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Erik Christiansen]

On 10.12.18 17:29, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:31:28PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > Thread comment: It's OK to be unaware of the usefulness of RFC features,
> > but it does seem odd to pretend that they're not useful just because
> > it's only others who need them.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but for the sake of
> clarity about RFC features, here's what RFC 2822 says on the matter
> (3.6.3, paragraph 6):
> 
>When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
>authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:"
>field) or mailboxes specified in the "Reply-To:" field (if it
>exists) MAY appear in the "To:" field of the reply since these
>would normally be the primary recipients of the reply.  If a reply
>is sent to a message that has destination fields, it is often
>desirable to send a copy of the reply to all of the recipients of
>the message, in addition to the author.  When such a reply is
>formed, addresses in the "To:" and "Cc:" fields of the original
>message MAY appear in the "Cc:" field of the reply, since these are
>normally secondary recipients of the reply.
> 
> It recomments Mutt's current behavior, for precisely the reasons I
> gave in support of it.  The person who opened the ticket stated that
> the expected behavior is for the recipients in the To: field to be
> preserved, but the RFC clearly states otherwise.

It clearly states that it "MAY" be otherwise. There will doubtless be
use cases where that is fully acceptable, and cases where it can be
tolerated. It does, though, seem a pity to arbitrarily munge the user's
recipient preferences, rather than preserve them. It does seem to
violate POLA.

Erik

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Derek Martin]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:31:28PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> Thread comment: It's OK to be unaware of the usefulness of RFC features,
> but it does seem odd to pretend that they're not useful just because
> it's only others who need them.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but for the sake of
clarity about RFC features, here's what RFC 2822 says on the matter
(3.6.3, paragraph 6):

   When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
   authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:"
   field) or mailboxes specified in the "Reply-To:" field (if it
   exists) MAY appear in the "To:" field of the reply since these
   would normally be the primary recipients of the reply.  If a reply
   is sent to a message that has destination fields, it is often
   desirable to send a copy of the reply to all of the recipients of
   the message, in addition to the author.  When such a reply is
   formed, addresses in the "To:" and "Cc:" fields of the original
   message MAY appear in the "Cc:" field of the reply, since these are
   normally secondary recipients of the reply.

It recomments Mutt's current behavior, for precisely the reasons I
gave in support of it.  The person who opened the ticket stated that
the expected behavior is for the recipients in the To: field to be
preserved, but the RFC clearly states otherwise.

Also FWIW, I've been a member of the Mutt community since about 1996,
and this is the first time I remember anyone ever bringing it up.  If
it's happened before, it certainly has never been a hot issue.  22
years of virtually no one complaining does not exactly scream that it
needs attention...  Given that, I think the benefit of making this
configurable is not worth the risk of introducing a new bug that comes
with every change and with every increase in code complexity.

That said, in this case I imagine the required change is probably
small enough and simple enough that it's not a very interesting
consideration either way.  Still, Mutt is such a beast to configure as
it is, with so many configuration options, by default I lean heavily
against adding more options unless it can be shown that there's
significant benefit.  I think the available information suggest that
there is not.

-- 
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.



pgpD1td1r4lq8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Erik Christiansen]

On 05.12.18 00:44, Mihai Lazarescu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:12:08PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> > 
> > > I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would
> > > make a difference.
> > 
> > The ticket number is 98, but I thought mutt-users would be a better
> > place to have a discussion.
> > 
> > I can't speak for the reporter, but my understanding was the desire
> > to preserve the distinction between primary recipients, towards whom
> > the conversation is directly relevant, and others who may be just
> > being kept in the loop.
> 
> That's the meaning of To:/Cc: fields according to RFC5322
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.3
> 
>«The "To:" field contains the address(es) of the primaryrecipient(s)
> of the message.»
> 
>«The "Cc:" field (where the "Cc" means "Carbon Copy" inthe sense of
> making a copy on a typewriter using carbonpaper) contains the addresses
> of others who are to receivethe message, though the content of the
> message may not bedirected at them.»

Yes, the separate fields replicate paper based systems with a long history
of established use. Any lack of awareness of the clear distinction
between the fields merely reveals a lack of experience of situations in
which it is important, such as in many a corporate culture. Where the
recipients are all in-house but from differing departments or teams,
then leaders will be in the To: list, and significant lieutenants (and
departments passively involved) in the Cc: list. The latter to review
the content, but reply may need to be from a leader to be acceptable.
I have been involved in cross-corporate exchanges (in between physical
meetings) where corporate relationships, contractual implications, and
domain of responsibility are important considerations. And being on the
Cc: list implied a responsibility to read and consult - not reply
unilaterally.

Thread comment: It's OK to be unaware of the usefulness of RFC features,
but it does seem odd to pretend that they're not useful just because
it's only others who need them.

Erik

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Mihai Lazarescu]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:12:08PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:


On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:

> I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would
> make a difference.

The ticket number is 98, but I thought mutt-users would be a better
place to have a discussion.

I can't speak for the reporter, but my understanding was the desire
to preserve the distinction between primary recipients, towards whom
the conversation is directly relevant, and others who may be just
being kept in the loop.


That's the meaning of To:/Cc: fields according to RFC5322 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.3


   «The "To:" field contains the address(es) of the primary 
   recipient(s) of the message.»


   «The "Cc:" field (where the "Cc" means "Carbon Copy" in 
   the sense of making a copy on a typewriter using carbon 
   paper) contains the addresses of others who are to receive 
   the message, though the content of the message may not be 
   directed at them.»


A distinction makes sense, otherwise Cc: would be an exact 
duplication of To:, hence redundant.


The same RFC requires that all original recipients should be 
included in reply (so at least Cc-ed).


But given the RFC distinctive meaning for the original To:/Cc:, 
it make sense to preserve it in reply-to-all.  Or dump the Cc: 
field altogether and always list recipients in To:. :-)


Mihai

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Derek Martin]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:12:08PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> >I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would make
> >a difference.
> 
> The ticket number is 98, but I thought mutt-users would be a better
> place to have a discussion.
> 
> I can't speak for the reporter, but my understanding was the desire
> to preserve the distinction between primary recipients, towards whom
> the conversation is directly relevant, and others who may be just
> being kept in the loop.

A reply is inherently a response to something someone else said, and
as such that person is the only specific recipient, and all other
recipients are receiving a carbon copy.  I believe Mutt's current
behavior is correct in the spirit of how these fields are meant to be
used.

That said, FWIW, I almost never even look at the mail envelope, unless
I'm writing a "sensitive" response, so that I can make a decision as
to whether or not the recipient list needs to be pruned.  I mostly
think the notion that "If I'm only on the CC list I can ignore this"
is idiotic...  Like most people, anything superfluous that I can
ignore, I certainly will; so putting me on the CC list, if that is
your intent, is a waste of your time.  But I think recipients should
generally know whether they can or should ignore a thread from its
context and their relationship to the issue.  Rely on the message
envelope to decide that for you at your own peril.

-- 
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.



pgpDM4jiEhciv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Erik Christiansen]

On 30.11.18 01:34, Francesco Ariis wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> > I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would make a
> > difference.
> 
> I suspect work related setting. Cc: is indeed "being kept in the loop"
> while To: is "addressed specifically".
> 
> I have never noticed mutt behaviour, but the above seems a sensible
> behaviour.

+1

Spontaneous increase of entropy isn't usually user-friendly. If I hadn't
retired ten years ago, it'd make more of a difference here, but letting
the CC list know they can leave the message on the back burner is
fractionally as important as signalling the TO recipients that they
can't.

Erik

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Francesco Ariis]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would make a
> difference.

I suspect work related setting. Cc: is indeed "being kept in the loop"
while To: is "addressed specifically".

I have never noticed mutt behaviour, but the above seems a sensible
behaviour.

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Kevin J. McCarthy]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would make a 
difference.


The ticket number is 98, but I thought mutt-users would be a better 
place to have a discussion.


I can't speak for the reporter, but my understanding was the desire to 
preserve the distinction between primary recipients, towards whom the 
conversation is directly relevant, and others who may be just being kept 
in the loop.


--
Kevin J. McCarthy
GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C  5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2018-11-29 13:26, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:

> Someone opened a ticket asking about Mutt's group reply behavior.
> 
> By default (i.e. ignoring Mail-Followup-To, $reply_self, $reply_to,
> etc.), the To recipients are added to the Cc list of the reply.  The
> ticket reporter thought it made more sense for To recipients to remain
> in the To list of the reply.  Apparently, Thunderbird does this, but
> not sure about other clients.
> 
> Have no fear, I have no intention of changing default behavior.  But
> I'm curious about opinions on this list.  Is this "established proper"
> behavior, or is this something reasonable to have an option for?

I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would make a
difference.

-- 
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists
which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.

Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Kevin J. McCarthy]

Someone opened a ticket asking about Mutt's group reply behavior.

By default (i.e. ignoring Mail-Followup-To, $reply_self, $reply_to, 
etc.), the To recipients are added to the Cc list of the reply.  The 
ticket reporter thought it made more sense for To recipients to remain 
in the To list of the reply.  Apparently, Thunderbird does this, but not 
sure about other clients.


Have no fear, I have no intention of changing default behavior.  But I'm 
curious about opinions on this list.  Is this "established proper" 
behavior, or is this something reasonable to have an option for?


Thank you!

--
Kevin J. McCarthy
GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C  5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

group-reply Bcc

[Steve Schmerler]

Hi

I have asked this some time ago [1] but I may have not been specific
enough. I'll give it another shot.

I have write_bcc=yes set and therefore a copy of a sent mail will have
the Bcc header set and filled with recipients. I'd like to 
to that mail and wonder how to make the reply mail get the Bcc header
filled.  doesn't do that. Is there any setting that I may
have overlooked in the manual?

If not, I should be able to write a macro which extracts the Bcc from
the mail when replying. I'm thinking along the lines of 
and "formail -x Bcc" for extracting the header and my_hdr for setting
it, but I have kind of a hard time coming up with a working macro, so if
someone has some clever hints, that'll be great. Thanks!

best,
Steve

[1] https://marc.info/?l=mutt-users=144239490327363=2

Re: what is the command of group-reply

[Yubin Ruan]

On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 09:13:36PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
> On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 07:49:49PM +0800, Yubin Ruan wrote:
> > 
> > Can anyone tell me what is the command of group-reply?
> > Whenever replying a email with multiple `Cc' and recipents, I usually want 
> > to
> > reply to all of them. This can be achieved by "Reply-to-all" in some mail
> > clients. In Mutt, that is a single `g' in the pager.
> > 
> > But as I have binded 'g'  to another command, I have to bind the group-reply
> > command to another key. How can I achieve that?
> 
> You can bind it to whatever key you want if you're not going to use the
> default binding.
> 
> In hindsight, I wish I had rebound less stuff and just learned to use
> Mutt's bindings when I first started. But as someone who had used Pine
> for a while, I bound 'g' to cycle between mailboxes, and I use 'R' for
> group reply. You could use capital G or whatever other binding is
> convenient for you.
> 
> e.g.,
> bind pager R group-reply
> bind index R group-reply

group-reply is exactly what I want. Thanks!

Regards,
Yubin

Re: what is the command of group-reply

[Will Yardley]

On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 07:49:49PM +0800, Yubin Ruan wrote:
> 
> Can anyone tell me what is the command of group-reply?
> Whenever replying a email with multiple `Cc' and recipents, I usually want to
> reply to all of them. This can be achieved by "Reply-to-all" in some mail
> clients. In Mutt, that is a single `g' in the pager.
> 
> But as I have binded 'g'  to another command, I have to bind the group-reply
> command to another key. How can I achieve that?

You can bind it to whatever key you want if you're not going to use the
default binding.

In hindsight, I wish I had rebound less stuff and just learned to use
Mutt's bindings when I first started. But as someone who had used Pine
for a while, I bound 'g' to cycle between mailboxes, and I use 'R' for
group reply. You could use capital G or whatever other binding is
convenient for you.

e.g.,
bind pager R group-reply
bind index R group-reply

w

what is the command of group-reply

[Yubin Ruan]

Hi,

Can anyone tell me what is the command of group-reply?
Whenever replying a email with multiple `Cc' and recipents, I usually want to
reply to all of them. This can be achieved by "Reply-to-all" in some mail
clients. In Mutt, that is a single `g' in the pager.

But as I have binded 'g'  to another command, I have to bind the group-reply
command to another key. How can I achieve that?

Thanks,
Yubin

Re: group reply [SOLVED] now alternates

[Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă]

On 27-09-2016, at 14h 45'42", Jon LaBadie wrote about "Re: group reply [SOLVED] 
now alternates"
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:20:14PM +0200, Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă wrote:
> > 
> > Another shot in the dark: Is there a chance that the original author
> > is one of your alternates and you set up metoo variable to no?
> > 
> Pay the man!!!  That's it.
> My alternates definition is a regex that matched the author.

I am glad I could help.

> A couple of queries about alternates.
> 
> I simply have:
> 
>   alternates ".*@labadie\.us" ".*@jgcomp\.org" ".*@jgcomp\.com"
> 
> I can definitely make it more specific, but with many aliases
> I may need a long list.  Is a large alternates list common?

Mine is fairly long...
> 
> The .muttrc comments show this as "set alternates=" but my
> form obviously works.  Do both forms work?  Is there a difference?

I also have it as "alternates address1 address2 etc.", so yes both
form works. This one may be the older version and the one with set is
the newer version :-)

In my case the list is more specific. I even protect the dot with a
backslash not to match something else, so an address as
u...@domain.net is listed in my alternates as ^user@domain\.net$. This
is to avoid other addresses to match, such as new-u...@domain.net,
etc. But you can also use unalternates as Nathan said.

> Can multiple "alternates" lines appear in .muttrc?

I would guess that the last one will be honored.


Ionel

Re: group reply [SOLVED] now alternates

[Nathan Stratton Treadway]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 14:45:42 -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> My alternates definition is a regex that matched the author.
> 
> A couple of queries about alternates.
> 
> I simply have:
> 
>   alternates ".*@labadie\.us" ".*@jgcomp\.org" ".*@jgcomp\.com"
> 
> I can definitely make it more specific, but with many aliases
> I may need a long list.  Is a large alternates list common?

If the list of exceptions-to-the-rule is short, you can use
"unalternates" to list specific patterns that shouldn't be treated as an
alternate, while continuing to use the broad wildcard pattern on the
alternates line to match everything else

Nathan

Re: group reply [SOLVED] now alternates

[Jon LaBadie]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:20:14PM +0200, Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă wrote:
> On 26-09-2016, at 17h 20'26", Jon LaBadie wrote about "Re: group reply"
> > Did a reply to everyone in the "To:" header but the
> > original author in the "From:" header was not included.
> > 
> 
> Another shot in the dark: Is there a chance that the original author
> is one of your alternates and you set up metoo variable to no?
> 
Pay the man!!!  That's it.
My alternates definition is a regex that matched the author.

A couple of queries about alternates.

I simply have:

  alternates ".*@labadie\.us" ".*@jgcomp\.org" ".*@jgcomp\.com"

I can definitely make it more specific, but with many aliases
I may need a long list.  Is a large alternates list common?

The .muttrc comments show this as "set alternates=" but my
form obviously works.  Do both forms work?  Is there a difference?
Can multiple "alternates" lines appear in .muttrc?

Why am I asking something that I can easily try?

Jon
-- 
Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com
 11226 South Shore Rd.  (703) 787-0688 (H)
 Reston, VA  20190  (703) 935-6720 (C)

Re: group reply

[Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă]

On 26-09-2016, at 17h 20'26", Jon LaBadie wrote about "Re: group reply"
> Did a reply to everyone in the "To:" header but the
> original author in the "From:" header was not included.
> 

Another shot in the dark: Is there a chance that the original author
is one of your alternates and you set up metoo variable to no?

Kind regards,
 Ionel

Re: group reply

[Jon LaBadie]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 05:30:47PM -0400, Nathan Stratton Treadway wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 14:38:00 -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:02:24PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote:
> > > A shot in the dark..(and eventhough you inspected the headers_ :)
> > > 
> > > Nothing odd set into the "reply to:" header on the original
> > > message ?
> > 
> > None present in original message.
> 
> Mail-Followup-To: header?
> 
Not that one either.

Here is the entire header section minus the Received: lines,
the msg id shortened, and email addresses slightly munged.

  From gu...@jgcomp.com  Sun Sep 25 12:35:02 2016
  Return-Path: 
  X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on cyber.jgcomp.com
  X-Spam-Level: **
  X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.8 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_20,DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX,
FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1,HTML_MESSAGE,MIMEOLE_DIRECT_TO_MX autolearn=no
autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1
  X-Original-To: j...@jgcomp.com
  Delivered-To: j...@jgcomp.com
  X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jgcomp.com
  Return-Receipt-To: "Gundula U. LaBadie, PhD" 
  From: "Gundula" 
  To: "'George'" <...@comcast.net>,
"'Gertrude'" <...@gmail.com>,
"'Christy'" <...@gmail.com>,
"'Erika'" <...@yahoo.com>,
"'Zeb'" <...@gmail.com>,
"'Mike'" <...@gmail.com>
  Cc: "'Jon LaBadie'" 
  Subject: Reston Home Tour - October 15
  Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 12:31:04 -0400
  Message-ID: 
  MIME-Version: 1.0
  Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=_NextPart_000_040F_01D21728.AEAB2C70"
  X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
  Thread-Index: AdIXSjV3gYlyf9HKTWG9qvIIVg5MZw==
  X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
  Status: RO
  X-Status: A
  Content-Length: 4694
  Lines: 120
  

I noted the strange use of both single and double quotes in
the To: header but not the From: header.  Neither eliminating
the single quotes or adding them to the From: line had any
effect.

One other note, this message had both text and html versions
of the message.  But that should not affect mutt's handling
of replies should it?

Jon
-- 
Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com
 11226 South Shore Rd.  (703) 787-0688 (H)
 Reston, VA  20190  (703) 935-6720 (C)

Re: group reply

[Nathan Stratton Treadway]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 14:38:00 -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:02:24PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote:
> > A shot in the dark..(and eventhough you inspected the headers_ :)
> > 
> > Nothing odd set into the "reply to:" header on the original
> > message ?
> 
> None present in original message.

Mail-Followup-To: header?


Nathan

Re: group reply

[Jon LaBadie]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:21:11PM +0200, Jostein Berntsen wrote:
> On 26.09.16,14:38, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:02:24PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote:
> > > A shot in the dark..(and eventhough you inspected the headers_ :)
> > > 
> > > Nothing odd set into the "reply to:" header on the original
> > > message ?
> > 
> > None present in original message.
> > 
> 
> What happens if you do "R" instead?
> 
> Jostein
> 

I presume you meant "r" rather than "R" (recall postponed msg).

Well I wasn't expecting that.  "r" acted just like "g".
Did a reply to everyone in the "To:" header but the
original author in the "From:" header was not included.

Why do you ask?

Jon
> > > 
> > > On Sun,Sep 25 07:35:PM, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> > > > I don't recall this happening before.  I replied to
> > > > a message using 'g' and the message author was not
> > > > included in the list of recipients of my reply.
> > > >
> > > > I did not notice the omission until the author
> > > > mentioned she did not get my reply.  But I went
> > > > back to the original message and typed 'g' and
> > > > she is not in the recipient list.
> > > >
> > > > Another oddity, I had trouble finding the original
> > > > message to run the test.  Turns out saving that
> > > > message saved it to the first recipients file
> > > > rather than the authors file.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see anything strange in the headers, but ...
> > > >
> > > > Any clue what might cause this?
> > > >
> > > > Jon
> > > > --
> > > > Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com
> > > >  11226 South Shore Rd.  (703) 787-0688 (H)
> > > >  Reston, VA  20190  (703) 935-6720 (C)
> > > >
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Guy Gold
> > > Cambridge, Massachusetts
> > > > > End of included message <<<
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com
> > 11226 South Shore Rd.  (703) 787-0688 (H)
> > Reston, VA  20190  (703) 935-6720 (C)
> > 
>>> End of included message <<<

-- 
Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com
 11226 South Shore Rd.  (703) 787-0688 (H)
 Reston, VA  20190  (703) 935-6720 (C)

Re: group reply

[Jostein Berntsen]

On 26.09.16,14:38, Jon LaBadie wrote:

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:02:24PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote:

A shot in the dark..(and eventhough you inspected the headers_ :)

Nothing odd set into the "reply to:" header on the original
message ?


None present in original message.



What happens if you do "R" instead?

Jostein



jl


On Sun,Sep 25 07:35:PM, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> I don't recall this happening before.  I replied to
> a message using 'g' and the message author was not
> included in the list of recipients of my reply.
>
> I did not notice the omission until the author
> mentioned she did not get my reply.  But I went
> back to the original message and typed 'g' and
> she is not in the recipient list.
>
> Another oddity, I had trouble finding the original
> message to run the test.  Turns out saving that
> message saved it to the first recipients file
> rather than the authors file.
>
> I don't see anything strange in the headers, but ...
>
> Any clue what might cause this?
>
> Jon
> --
> Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com
>  11226 South Shore Rd.  (703) 787-0688 (H)
>  Reston, VA  20190  (703) 935-6720 (C)
>

--
Guy Gold
Cambridge, Massachusetts

End of included message <<<


--
Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com
11226 South Shore Rd.  (703) 787-0688 (H)
Reston, VA  20190  (703) 935-6720 (C)

Re: group reply

[Jon LaBadie]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:02:24PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote:
> A shot in the dark..(and eventhough you inspected the headers_ :)
> 
> Nothing odd set into the "reply to:" header on the original
> message ?

None present in original message.

jl
> 
> On Sun,Sep 25 07:35:PM, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> > I don't recall this happening before.  I replied to
> > a message using 'g' and the message author was not
> > included in the list of recipients of my reply.
> > 
> > I did not notice the omission until the author
> > mentioned she did not get my reply.  But I went
> > back to the original message and typed 'g' and
> > she is not in the recipient list.
> > 
> > Another oddity, I had trouble finding the original
> > message to run the test.  Turns out saving that
> > message saved it to the first recipients file
> > rather than the authors file.
> > 
> > I don't see anything strange in the headers, but ...
> > 
> > Any clue what might cause this?
> > 
> > Jon
> > -- 
> > Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com
> >  11226 South Shore Rd.  (703) 787-0688 (H)
> >  Reston, VA  20190  (703) 935-6720 (C)
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Guy Gold
> Cambridge, Massachusetts
>>> End of included message <<<

-- 
Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com
 11226 South Shore Rd.  (703) 787-0688 (H)
 Reston, VA  20190  (703) 935-6720 (C)

Re: group reply

[Guy Gold]

A shot in the dark..(and eventhough you inspected the headers_ :)

Nothing odd set into the "reply to:" header on the original
message ?

On Sun,Sep 25 07:35:PM, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> I don't recall this happening before.  I replied to
> a message using 'g' and the message author was not
> included in the list of recipients of my reply.
> 
> I did not notice the omission until the author
> mentioned she did not get my reply.  But I went
> back to the original message and typed 'g' and
> she is not in the recipient list.
> 
> Another oddity, I had trouble finding the original
> message to run the test.  Turns out saving that
> message saved it to the first recipients file
> rather than the authors file.
> 
> I don't see anything strange in the headers, but ...
> 
> Any clue what might cause this?
> 
> Jon
> -- 
> Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com
>  11226 South Shore Rd.  (703) 787-0688 (H)
>  Reston, VA  20190  (703) 935-6720 (C)
> 

-- 
Guy Gold
Cambridge, Massachusetts

group reply

[Jon LaBadie]

I don't recall this happening before.  I replied to
a message using 'g' and the message author was not
included in the list of recipients of my reply.

I did not notice the omission until the author
mentioned she did not get my reply.  But I went
back to the original message and typed 'g' and
she is not in the recipient list.

Another oddity, I had trouble finding the original
message to run the test.  Turns out saving that
message saved it to the first recipients file
rather than the authors file.

I don't see anything strange in the headers, but ...

Any clue what might cause this?

Jon
-- 
Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com
 11226 South Shore Rd.  (703) 787-0688 (H)
 Reston, VA  20190  (703) 935-6720 (C)

Re: List reply + group reply combined

[Dominik Vogt]

On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 11:22:53PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 04.02.16 12:13, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:51:54PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > > OK, as is, "To:" becomes the sender of the post to which we're replying,
> > > i.e. the person to whom we actually are replying, and "CC:" is the list
> > > and all the other recipients of the prior post, i.e. the CC recipients.
> > > The effect of that is the same as your proposed aesthetic variant, AIUI.
> > 
> > For one this is not just aesthetic, because putting a recipient in
> > "CC:" tells him or her "you might be interested in this" while
> > "To:" means "I'm talking specifically to you".  I make this
> > distinction frequently and may often not read a message thoroughly
> > if I'm only in "CC:".
> 
> That is precisely why it is correct for the prior poster, i.e. the only
> person to whom we _are_ directly replying, to be alone on "To:", as
> currently occurs.

When using list-reply the prior poster is not the main recipient,
and that's what we're talking about.  You start a discussion on a
mailing list with every subscriber or reader "implicitly" cc'ed.
Staying with the example of gcc-patches:  Many people (including
me) don't subscribe the list but check it manually for topics
interesting to them, so usually the "courtesy copy" is the only
message they usually get.  Still, replies should go to the list
with "courtesy copies" in CC.  This model is not well supported by
mutt, i.e. you have to hand edit the recipient list (which I do
all the time) or live with the main recipient (the list) in CC
and/or other people who may not even have written a single message
in "To:".

> As you have defined it, and I am tempted to concur, it is the proposed
> variant which would be incorrect, if anything is.

Your model of reading gcc-patches may be different and well
supported by mutt.

"list-reply-keep-others-in-cc", not for a group reply with special
handling for list addresses.

> Still, if desperate, you could:
> 
> set edit_headers=yes
> 
> and shuffle recipients about while composing the reply. If that doesn't
> suit, then ISTR that a post-edit filter could be written and
> automatically run on exit from the editor, e.g. a few lines of awk.
> (If not automatically, then it can definitely be run manually once back
> in the compose menu.)

I'll try that if there's no easier way built into mutt.

Ciao

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

-- 

Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany

Re: List reply + group reply combined

[Erik Christiansen]

On 05.02.16 08:54, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> On 2016-02-04 11:34:49 Ben Boeckel hacked into the keyboard:
> > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 23:22:53 +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > > The group of list members who are listed CC recipients who "might be
> > > interested in this", receive individual "courtesy copies" in addition to
> > > the list copy, which is often more than they want, as it is.¹
> > 
> > Mailman has an option to not send you the list copy if you're on the CC
> > list.
> 
> Which break "Reply-to-List" because your
> "Cc:" has not the List-Header anymore...

That need not happen, if mutt is adequately configured. When my procmail
rules faithfully mimic the above, by sending the list copy (it almost
always is the second to arrive) to "duplicates", the CC serves just as
well for Reply-to-List.

Mutt does not require a List-Header for Reply-to-List to function.
All that is necessary for mutt to pick up the list in the CC header is
that the list address appear in one of .muttrc's "subscribe" lines.

Kinda handy, that. :-)

Erik

List reply + group reply combined

[Dominik Vogt]

On some mailing lists you're expected to keep people on CC, for
example the gcc lists.  So I need kind of a combination of a list
reply and a group reply, i.e. put the list address in "To:" and
add all other addresses that would be included in a group reply to
"CC:".

Or put in another way:  In a group reply, if there is at least one
mailing list in the recipient list, put all of them in the "To:"
header and stick all non-list-recipients into the "CC:" header.

Ciao

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

-- 

Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany

Re: List reply + group reply combined

[Dominik Vogt]

On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:51:54PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 04.02.16 11:24, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On some mailing lists you're expected to keep people on CC, for
> > example the gcc lists.  So I need kind of a combination of a list
> > reply and a group reply, i.e. put the list address in "To:" and
> > add all other addresses that would be included in a group reply to
> > "CC:".
> > 
> > Or put in another way:  In a group reply, if there is at least one
> > mailing list in the recipient list, put all of them in the "To:"
> > header and stick all non-list-recipients into the "CC:" header.
> 
> OK, as is, "To:" becomes the sender of the post to which we're replying,
> i.e. the person to whom we actually are replying, and "CC:" is the list
> and all the other recipients of the prior post, i.e. the CC recipients.
> The effect of that is the same as your proposed aesthetic variant, AIUI.

For one this is not just aesthetic, because putting a recipient in
"CC:" tells him or her "you might be interested in this" while
"To:" means "I'm talking specifically to you".  I make this
distinction frequently and may often not read a message thoroughly
if I'm only in "CC:".

And then what you describe does only work this way in some cases.
Consider a message that I have sent to a list and cc'ed a
colleague:

  From: ME
  To: LIST
  CC: COLLEAGUE

Using group reply to my own message generates

  From: ME
  To: LIST, COLLEAGUE

> On gcc-patches, for example, posts use every variant of the above, and
> even have several recipients on "To:", and others on "CC:". But the most
> common is the native behaviour of mutt, I observe. I.e. the list is more
> often on "CC:".

Well, "most common" is not a synonym for "correct".  ;-)

Ciao

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

-- 

Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany

Re: List reply + group reply combined

[Erik Christiansen]

On 04.02.16 12:13, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:51:54PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > OK, as is, "To:" becomes the sender of the post to which we're replying,
> > i.e. the person to whom we actually are replying, and "CC:" is the list
> > and all the other recipients of the prior post, i.e. the CC recipients.
> > The effect of that is the same as your proposed aesthetic variant, AIUI.
> 
> For one this is not just aesthetic, because putting a recipient in
> "CC:" tells him or her "you might be interested in this" while
> "To:" means "I'm talking specifically to you".  I make this
> distinction frequently and may often not read a message thoroughly
> if I'm only in "CC:".

That is precisely why it is correct for the prior poster, i.e. the only
person to whom we _are_ directly replying, to be alone on "To:", as
currently occurs.

We are not specifically replying to every list member, so it is correct
for them to be on "CC:", in the form of the list address.

The group of list members who are listed CC recipients who "might be
interested in this", receive individual "courtesy copies" in addition to
the list copy, which is often more than they want, as it is.¹

As you have defined it, and I am tempted to concur, it is the proposed
variant which would be incorrect, if anything is.

¹ Because the damned "courtesy copy" arrives first, I'm forced to use
procmail to divert that to the list mailbox. Then the list copy is
dumped to "duplicates", so I'm spared the nuisance of needless
repetition wasting my time. Now the reply can be read in the context of
the thread - very handy if there is a follow-up with a subject of
"FIXED: ...".

Still, if desperate, you could:

set edit_headers=yes

and shuffle recipients about while composing the reply. If that doesn't
suit, then ISTR that a post-edit filter could be written and
automatically run on exit from the editor, e.g. a few lines of awk.
(If not automatically, then it can definitely be run manually once back
in the compose menu.)

Erik

Re: List reply + group reply combined

[Erik Christiansen]

On 04.02.16 11:24, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On some mailing lists you're expected to keep people on CC, for
> example the gcc lists.  So I need kind of a combination of a list
> reply and a group reply, i.e. put the list address in "To:" and
> add all other addresses that would be included in a group reply to
> "CC:".
> 
> Or put in another way:  In a group reply, if there is at least one
> mailing list in the recipient list, put all of them in the "To:"
> header and stick all non-list-recipients into the "CC:" header.

OK, as is, "To:" becomes the sender of the post to which we're replying,
i.e. the person to whom we actually are replying, and "CC:" is the list
and all the other recipients of the prior post, i.e. the CC recipients.
The effect of that is the same as your proposed aesthetic variant, AIUI.

On gcc-patches, for example, posts use every variant of the above, and
even have several recipients on "To:", and others on "CC:". But the most
common is the native behaviour of mutt, I observe. I.e. the list is more
often on "CC:".

Erik

Re: List reply + group reply combined

[Michelle Konzack]

On 2016-02-04 11:34:49 Ben Boeckel hacked into the keyboard:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 23:22:53 +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > The group of list members who are listed CC recipients who "might be
> > interested in this", receive individual "courtesy copies" in addition to
> > the list copy, which is often more than they want, as it is.¹
> 
> Mailman has an option to not send you the list copy if you're on the CC
> list.

Which break "Reply-to-List" because your
"Cc:" has not the List-Header anymore...

-- 
Michelle KonzackITSystems
GNU/Linux Developer 0033-6-61925193

Re: List reply + group reply combined

[Ben Boeckel]

On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 23:22:53 +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> The group of list members who are listed CC recipients who "might be
> interested in this", receive individual "courtesy copies" in addition to
> the list copy, which is often more than they want, as it is.¹

Mailman has an option to not send you the list copy if you're on the CC
list.

--Ben

Re: Change to group reply from compose map?

[Xu Wang]

I concur that from within Vim there is not much sense to do it. But
why not from compose map? Should have access to same information as
pager map.

Kind regards,

Xu

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Stephen <mail...@tuxcon.com> wrote:
> I tend to just exit Vim, and then hit the right key (in fact, had to
> do it right now :P). Never felt it's delayed me enough to see if
> there's an alternative approach, although I'd think at that point
> there's not (in relation to Mutt) as you're in an external editor with
> no direct tie to mutt, other than passing off the file at the
> completion of your composition.
>
> -Stephen
>
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Xu Wang wrote:
>
>> I often press 'r', write my message, and then realize on compose map
>> that I should have done 'g' for group reply. Is there a way to switch
>> on compose map (other than doing manually editing)?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Xu

Re: Change to group reply from compose map?

[Stephen]

I tend to just exit Vim, and then hit the right key (in fact, had to
do it right now :P). Never felt it's delayed me enough to see if
there's an alternative approach, although I'd think at that point
there's not (in relation to Mutt) as you're in an external editor with
no direct tie to mutt, other than passing off the file at the
completion of your composition.

-Stephen

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Xu Wang wrote:

> I often press 'r', write my message, and then realize on compose map
> that I should have done 'g' for group reply. Is there a way to switch
> on compose map (other than doing manually editing)?
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Xu

Change to group reply from compose map?

[Xu Wang]

I often press 'r', write my message, and then realize on compose map
that I should have done 'g' for group reply. Is there a way to switch
on compose map (other than doing manually editing)?

Kind regards,

Xu

Re: format=flowed (was: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply)

[Chris Bannister]

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 12:31:58AM -0400, Grady Martin wrote:
> On 2015年09月07日 13時39分, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> >Hmm. I was going to complain about your reflow_*
> >settings (even though the defaults are to reflow
> >at 78 columns), but I see that they are not
> >properly obeyed for me either. Grady's message
> >wraps at my terminal width, even though I have
> >just set reflow_wrap to 40 as a test.
> 
> The reflow_wrap setting does not seem to affect messages for me, either, 
> despite reflow_text being set.  This could be a problem, as the ideal display 
> width of lines is a matter of personal opinion, and people's opinions differ. 
>  Personally, I do not like wasted screen space and have set reflow_wrap to 0. 
>  The problem is that Patrick, for example, would probably like a reflow_wrap 
> value of 80 and yet setting it to 80 does nothing.
> 
> In the spirit of experimentation...
> 
> On 2015年09月07日 13時39分, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> >Hmm. I was going to complain about your reflow_* settings (even though the 
> >defaults are to reflow at 78 columns), but I see that they are not properly 
> >obeyed for me either. Grady's message wraps at my terminal width, even 
> >though I have just set reflow_wrap to 40 as a test.
> 

I certainly know which is easier to read. If it's hard to read most
people don't bother, and if you are looking for help then that can be
very problematic. Of course, it's the OP's choice how they format their
mail.

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: format=flowed (was: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply)

[Patrick Shanahan]

* Cameron Simpson  [09-06-15 23:51]:
> On 06Sep2015 22:54, Patrick Shanahan  wrote:
 [...]
> >Most certainly, longer lines than 80 chars.
> 
> Hmm. I was going to complain about your reflow_* settings (even though the
> defaults are to reflow at 78 columns), but I see that they are not properly
> obeyed for me either. Grady's message wraps at my terminal width, even
> though I have just set reflow_wrap to 40 as a test.
> 
> More interestingly, my reply to you _does_ honour my reflow settings when
> displayed.
> 
> This is just weird.
> 
> More testing needed...

When so doubt or question exists, there is always that ancient document,
man pages.

re: wrap
  set wrap=78
  set smart_wrap
  set reflow_wrap

Nothing weird except habit :)
-- 
(paka)Patrick Shanahan   Plainfield, Indiana, USA  @ptilopteri
http://en.opensuse.orgopenSUSE Community Memberfacebook/ptilopteri
http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net

Re: format=flowed (was: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply)

[Cameron Simpson]

On 07Sep2015 00:31, Grady Martin  wrote:

On 2015年09月07日 13時39分, Cameron Simpson wrote:

Hmm. I was going to complain about your reflow_*
settings (even though the defaults are to reflow
at 78 columns), but I see that they are not
properly obeyed for me either. Grady's message
wraps at my terminal width, even though I have
just set reflow_wrap to 40 as a test.


The reflow_wrap setting does not seem to affect messages for me, either, 
despite reflow_text being set.  This could be a problem, as the ideal display 
width of lines is a matter of personal opinion, and people's opinions differ.  
Personally, I do not like wasted screen space and have set reflow_wrap to 0.  
The problem is that Patrick, for example, would probably like a reflow_wrap 
value of 80 and yet setting it to 80 does nothing.


I've just been rereading RFC3676, which specifies the format=flowed format. It 
has these juicy statements in section 4.1:


 If the line ends in a space, the line is flowed. 
 Otherwise it is fixed.


and:

 A series of one or more flowed lines followed by one fixed line is considered 
 a paragraph, and MAY be flowed (wrapped and unwrapped) as appropriate on 
 display and in the construction of new messages (see Section 4.5).


The salient difference between my messages (which reflow to the reflow_wrap 
value) and yours (which do not, and are simply folded at the display width) is 
that your messages have every paragraph as a single line. By the above 
definitions, that is a fixed line which should not be reflowed.


What you need to do is edit in a mode that produces flowed paragraphs. I'm 
using a slightly annoying vim setting that does most of this, and compose 
messages with "set editor=vim-flowed", where vim-flowed is this:


 https://bitbucket.org/cameron_simpson/css/src/tip/bin/vim-flowed

The upshot is that my paragraphs _are_ multiline, with trailing spaces. And 
thus get reflowed.


Yours are "fixed", and mutt (correctly) tries to not reflow them. (As you might 
wish it to with code snippets or CSV file lines etc.)


Cheers,
Cameron Simpson 

Re: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply

[Cameron Simpson]

On 07Sep2015 00:41, Grady Martin  wrote:

On 2015年09月06日 21時38分, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

line wrapping would really be nice.

Read the fine manual about "lists" and "subscribe" in muttrc


Here is what the manual says:


Mutt has a few nice features for handling mailing lists. In order to take
advantage of them, you must specify which addresses belong to mailing lists,
and which mailing lists you are subscribed to.


Laziness is a virtue.  Do you think it would be possible to abbreviate the
trouble of having to specify regexes or addresses for every mailing list?  As
is, I use  for lists, and that fine works--but it would be nice to
have one, intelligent reply command.


I use  myself. For everthing: lists, direct email, etc. Of course 
one must review the To/CC this way, but it works well for me. I've practically 
forgotten that the "r" and "l" keys exist...


I confess I have never understood the mindset around making "lists" and 
"subscribe" separate notions. Could someone outline the use case for this to me 
please?


Cheers,
Cameron Simpson 

If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply

[Grady Martin]

Hello, fellow puppies.  The mutt mailing list is magical.  Executing a regular 
 results in a prompt that confirms the recipient (list or sender).

Not all mailing lists work so well.  These require .  However, because 
 fails for mail not originating from a list, it would be nice if it could fall back 
to, say,  or .  Can this be done?

Re: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply

[Grady Martin]

On 2015年09月06日 21時38分, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

line wrapping would really be nice.

Read the fine manual about "lists" and "subscribe" in muttrc


Here is what the manual says:


Mutt has a few nice features for handling mailing lists. In order to take
advantage of them, you must specify which addresses belong to mailing lists,
and which mailing lists you are subscribed to.


Laziness is a virtue.  Do you think it would be possible to abbreviate the
trouble of having to specify regexes or addresses for every mailing list?  As
is, I use  for lists, and that fine works--but it would be nice to
have one, intelligent reply command.

Re: format=flowed (was: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply)

[Patrick Shanahan]

* Cameron Simpson  [09-06-15 22:41]:
> On 06Sep2015 21:38, Patrick Shanahan  wrote:
> >* Grady Martin  [09-06-15 21:32]:
> >>Hello, fellow puppies.  The mutt mailing list is magical.  Executing a
> >>regular  results in a prompt that confirms the recipient (list or
> >>sender).
> [...]
> >
> >line wrapping would really be nice.
> 
> His message was format=flowed, and the lines wrapped nicely on my mutt
> display here. Is there something specific wrong?

Most certainly, longer lines than 80 chars.  
-- 
(paka)Patrick Shanahan   Plainfield, Indiana, USA  @ptilopteri
http://en.opensuse.orgopenSUSE Community Memberfacebook/ptilopteri
http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net

Re: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply

[Patrick Shanahan]

* Grady Martin  [09-06-15 21:32]:
> Hello, fellow puppies.  The mutt mailing list is magical.  Executing a
> regular  results in a prompt that confirms the recipient (list or
> sender).
> 
> Not all mailing lists work so well.  These require . 
> However, because  fails for mail not originating from a
> list, it would be nice if it could fall back to, say,  or
> .  Can this be done?

line wrapping would really be nice.

Read the fine manual about "lists" and "subscribe" in muttrc

-- 
(paka)Patrick Shanahan   Plainfield, Indiana, USA  @ptilopteri
http://en.opensuse.orgopenSUSE Community Memberfacebook/ptilopteri
http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net

Re: format=flowed (was: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply)

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2015-09-07 13:39 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:

> Hmm. I was going to complain about your reflow_* settings (even
> though the defaults are to reflow at 78 columns), but I see that they
> are not properly obeyed for me either. Grady's message wraps at my
> terminal width, even though I have just set reflow_wrap to 40 as a
> test.
>
> More interestingly, my reply to you _does_ honour my reflow settings
> when displayed.

Encoding.  It is not obeyed for QP parts, in my experience.

-- 
Please *no* private copies of mailing list or newsgroup messages.
Rule 420: All persons more than eight miles high to leave the court.

Re: format=flowed (was: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply)

[Grady Martin]

On 2015年09月07日 13時39分, Cameron Simpson wrote:

Hmm. I was going to complain about your reflow_*
settings (even though the defaults are to reflow
at 78 columns), but I see that they are not
properly obeyed for me either. Grady's message
wraps at my terminal width, even though I have
just set reflow_wrap to 40 as a test.


The reflow_wrap setting does not seem to affect messages for me, either, 
despite reflow_text being set.  This could be a problem, as the ideal display 
width of lines is a matter of personal opinion, and people's opinions differ.  
Personally, I do not like wasted screen space and have set reflow_wrap to 0.  
The problem is that Patrick, for example, would probably like a reflow_wrap 
value of 80 and yet setting it to 80 does nothing.

In the spirit of experimentation...

On 2015年09月07日 13時39分, Cameron Simpson wrote:

Hmm. I was going to complain about your reflow_* settings (even though the 
defaults are to reflow at 78 columns), but I see that they are not properly 
obeyed for me either. Grady's message wraps at my terminal width, even though I 
have just set reflow_wrap to 40 as a test.


Mutt 1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

Re: format=flowed (was: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply)

[Cameron Simpson]

On 06Sep2015 22:54, Patrick Shanahan  wrote:

* Cameron Simpson  [09-06-15 22:41]:

On 06Sep2015 21:38, Patrick Shanahan  wrote:
>* Grady Martin  [09-06-15 21:32]:
>>Hello, fellow puppies.  The mutt mailing list is magical.  Executing a
>>regular  results in a prompt that confirms the recipient (list or
>>sender).
[...]
>
>line wrapping would really be nice.

His message was format=flowed, and the lines wrapped nicely on my mutt
display here. Is there something specific wrong?


Most certainly, longer lines than 80 chars.


Hmm. I was going to complain about your reflow_* settings (even though the 
defaults are to reflow at 78 columns), but I see that they are not properly 
obeyed for me either. Grady's message wraps at my terminal width, even though I 
have just set reflow_wrap to 40 as a test.


More interestingly, my reply to you _does_ honour my reflow settings when 
displayed.


This is just weird.

More testing needed...

Cheers,
Cameron Simpson 

format=flowed (was: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply)

[Cameron Simpson]

On 06Sep2015 21:38, Patrick Shanahan  wrote:

* Grady Martin  [09-06-15 21:32]:

Hello, fellow puppies.  The mutt mailing list is magical.  Executing a
regular  results in a prompt that confirms the recipient (list or
sender).

[...]


line wrapping would really be nice.


His message was format=flowed, and the lines wrapped nicely on my mutt display 
here. Is there something specific wrong?


Cheers,
Cameron Simpson 

Re: Ask for group reply

[Udo Hortian]

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 02:47:45PM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
 On 13May2010 09:53, Udo Hortian udo_hort...@web.de 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.

Ask for group reply

[Udo Hortian]

Dear mutt users,

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?

Udo

Re: Ask for group reply

[Cameron Simpson]

On 13May2010 09:53, Udo Hortian udo_hort...@web.de 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.

Cheers,
-- 
Cameron Simpson c...@zip.com.au DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/

Gosh, that's the 3rd motorcycle that's passed us. Sure do take their life in
 their hands, what with the weather and all.
Yes Janet, life's pretty cheap to that type.

Audience:   YEAH THAT TYPE!!

group reply exclude self?

[James]

All,

I'm wondering if there's some way to tell mutt to automatically remove
self from group replies. I find this to be a pain sometimes when on
long email threads.

Thoughts?

-j

Re: group reply exclude self?

[Kyle Wheeler]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On Tuesday, August 18 at 08:55 AM, quoth James:
All,

I'm wondering if there's some way to tell mutt to automatically remove
self from group replies. I find this to be a pain sometimes when on
long email threads.

To quote the muttrc man page:

 metoo
 Type: boolean
 Default: no

 If unset, Mutt will remove your address (see the alternates
 command) from the list of recipients when replying to a
 message.

So, from the sounds of it, you just need to set up your alternates 
correctly.

~Kyle
- -- 
Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is 
alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.
 -- Gaudium et spes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!
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=ByPJ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: group reply exclude self?

[James]

Hah! I really did RTFM...must have just missed this one. ;)

Many thanks Kyle...you're a great help on this alias!

-j

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Kyle Wheelerkyle-m...@memoryhole.net wrote:
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA256

 On Tuesday, August 18 at 08:55 AM, quoth James:
All,

I'm wondering if there's some way to tell mutt to automatically remove
self from group replies. I find this to be a pain sometimes when on
long email threads.

 To quote the muttrc man page:

     metoo
         Type: boolean
         Default: no

         If unset, Mutt will remove your address (see the alternates
         command) from the list of recipients when replying to a
         message.

 So, from the sounds of it, you just need to set up your alternates
 correctly.

 ~Kyle
 - --
 Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is
 alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.
                                                     -- Gaudium et spes
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
 Comment: Thank you for using encryption!

 iQIbBAEBCAAGBQJKiqo3AAoJECuveozR/AWe8aUP+Npl3UHP53jmBUa67YKSLhkg
 cZTwwW7ewPsl/Ir7j1APhdA/YliDNU8gb+BQmq41+E4DCJzM7B4is7RQWFIBwABC
 zLrmdq+faRoaVB7/6wVkhssIa75Z+uwVXlasnZOTJ55KTKOhYyop7lbc438u5Yql
 TiHmcftfOpAjIY50YTEHoss8Imy7S1WVV+8rj1aPM+TPyta+UnghJrLwARA2X0gh
 39/VC4x2HlX2SIdkzhrS4wGRzPFzECcM7XhWCmjRvrOyOR3u3lmAlUaxj+eYIQWr
 E705knOZx+ifSWGZ/CsSuhjCUDYcLFK3VWr/JQkgOqhmapoejMDUS++KA86X1VHS
 x7Yh4UHTnXbY113E1ZWqMYbxQ9EGjNho6th4EvLnrWYlOI8Qp0iTuoiM5r1/0ON/
 YUm+HYY+0387hwYjz4v/5Z4GHyoTzTk5Qk8BOkSo4xXrgIfYAJ+5Aie2SVLDBPSE
 mxr1d5NyPcBSfmU5oAOjCT+d/Fwctp055s9U0mVTKRQW/GpTJJ6o8Ia44KxC39z5
 unAbiByr23Sx2ezOAnOg5eGxXl9FaNApRu0td9tesrKI5T1VhgCyDT8oKZAwWNcy
 qZGjvc6C64GpvLo8ol8xbLGVkOuFOMJH8zL0O6dxZaC9m9MV7C4zfKZ3y8o9jQN3
 3aiEuUvg4opF7dXu3WQ=
 =ByPJ
 -END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: group reply exclude self?

[Alexander Dahl]

Hi,

 To quote the muttrc man page:
 
  metoo
  Type: boolean
  Default: no
 
  If unset, Mutt will remove your address (see the alternates
  command) from the list of recipients when replying to a
  message.

Awesome. I just missed this functionality and now it's so simple and
does exactly what I want (include me on group reply but not on normal
replies). I just set this to 'yes' in my .muttrc – thank you very much. :-)

Greets
Alex

-- 
»With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured,
the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all
irrevocably.« (Jean-Luc Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie)
*** GnuPG-FP: 02C8 A590 7FE5 CA5F 3601  D1D5 8FBA 7744 CC87 10D0 ***

removing self from group reply

[David Rock]

I know this has come up before, but I can't find it anywhere:

When I group reply to a message, is there any way to remove my own
address from the recipient list?

-- 
David Rock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



msg30933/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: removing self from group reply

[Will Yardley]

David Rock wrote:

 I know this has come up before, but I can't find it anywhere:
 
 When I group reply to a message, is there any way to remove my own
 address from the recipient list?

unset metoo should do what you want.

if that doesn't work, perhaps you don't have $alternates set correctly.

-- 
Will Yardley
input: william   hq . newdream . net . 

Re: removing self from group reply

[Johan Almqvist]

* David Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020912 21:02]:
 When I group reply to a message, is there any way to remove my own
 address from the recipient list?

Mutt should do this for you if you have set alternates
correctly...

-Johan
-- 
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/

Re: removing self from group reply

[David Rock]

* Johan Almqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-12 21:10]:
 * David Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020912 21:02]:
  When I group reply to a message, is there any way to remove my own
  address from the recipient list?
 
 Mutt should do this for you if you have set alternates
 correctly...

Duh, worked great. Is it just me, or does the Mutt manual not have any
direct explanation of how alternates relates to the rest of mutt? for
example:

6.3.7.  alternates

  Type: regular expression
  Default: 

  A regexp that allows you to specify alternate addresses where you
  receive mail.  This affects Mutt's idea about messages from you and
  addressed to you.


6.3.96.  metoo

  Type: boolean
  Default: no

  If unset, Mutt will remove your address from the list of recipients
  when replying to a message.


Neither of these really explains that metoo needs alternates to be set.
Maybe metoo should be expounded to include a note stating as much?

Thanks again for the help.

-- 
David Rock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



msg30937/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: removing self from group reply

[Rob Park]

Alas! David Rock spake thus:
 6.3.96.  metoo
 
   Type: boolean
   Default: no
 
   If unset, Mutt will remove your address from the list of recipients
   
Mutt can only know who you are by $alternates.

 Neither of these really explains that metoo needs alternates to be set.
 Maybe metoo should be expounded to include a note stating as much?

I don't think that is necessary. Perhaps alternates could have a note
saying that it must be set for any of the features that depend on who
you are to work.

-- 
Rob 'Feztaa' Park
http://members.shaw.ca/feztaa/
--
When anyone says `theoretically,' they really mean `not really.'
 -- David Parnas



msg30944/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: removing self from group reply

[Sven Guckes]

* David Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-12 19:32]:
 * Johan Almqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-12 21:10]:
  * David Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020912 21:02]:
   When I group reply to a message, is there any way to
   remove my own address from the recipient list?
 
  Mutt should do this for you if you have set alternates correctly...

 Duh, worked great. Is it just me, or does the Mutt manual not have any
 direct explanation of how alternates relates to the rest of mutt? [..]
 Neither of these really explains that metoo needs alternates to be set.
 Maybe metoo should be expounded to include a note stating as much?

yes, the manual can be improved.   there's *your* chance to help!
hint hint hint hint hint hint hint hint hint hint hint hint hint :-)

Sven

group reply question

[Eduardo Gargiulo]

Hi all.

How should i configure my muttrc to make mutt don't include my address
in group replies messages? The variable metoo is unset, but my address is
still there (CC).

TIA

-- 
Eduardo Gargiulo
^ejg(-.*)?@ar\.homelinux\.org$



msg27635/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: group reply question

[Christoph Maurer]

On 2002-04-25 Eduardo Gargiulo wrote:
 How should i configure my muttrc to make mutt don't include my address
 in group replies messages? The variable metoo is unset, but my address is
 still there (CC).

Did you set alternates correctly, so that mutt knows, who you are?

Regards,

Christoph 



-- 
Christoph Maurer - D - 52072 Aachen
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.christophmaurer.de
On my Homepage: SuSE 7.0 on an Acer Travelmate 508 T Notebook



msg27636/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: group reply question

[Eduardo Gargiulo]

Christoph Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 2002-04-25 Eduardo Gargiulo wrote:
  How should i configure my muttrc to make mutt don't include my address
  in group replies messages? The variable metoo is unset, but my address is
  still there (CC).
 
 Did you set alternates correctly, so that mutt knows, who you are?

yes, the message was for 'Eduardo Gargiulo [EMAIL PROTECTED]' and
my alternates are

set alternates=egargiulo@ingdesi.(net|com)?
set alternates=ejg(-.*)?@ar.homelinux.org

-- 
Eduardo Gargiulo
^ejg(-.*)?@ar\.homelinux\.org$



msg27637/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: group reply question

[David T-G]

Eduardo --

...and then Eduardo Gargiulo said...
% 
...
% set alternates=egargiulo@ingdesi.(net|com)?
% set alternates=ejg(-.*)?@ar.homelinux.org

Unlike mailboxes or lists, alternates is a basic regexp, so your second
setting will step on your first and no egargiulo addresses will be
recognized.  You need to combine these; fortunately, the brute force

  set alternates=egargiulo@ingdesi.(net|com)?|ejg(-.*)?@ar.homelinux.org

works.


% 
% -- 
% Eduardo Gargiulo
% ^ejg(-.*)?@ar\.homelinux\.org$

Now that's an interesting one.  I wonder if it will really work as a
mangling without something like

  ...\.org(.invalid|)$

on the end.  Not a bad idea, though!


HTH  HAND

:-D
-- 
David T-G  * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!




msg27638/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: group reply question

[Eduardo Gargiulo]

David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Eduardo --
 
 ...and then Eduardo Gargiulo said...
 % 
 ...
 % set alternates=egargiulo@ingdesi.(net|com)?
 % set alternates=ejg(-.*)?@ar.homelinux.org
 
 Unlike mailboxes or lists, alternates is a basic regexp, so your second
 setting will step on your first and no egargiulo addresses will be
 recognized.  You need to combine these; fortunately, the brute force
 
   set alternates=egargiulo@ingdesi.(net|com)?|ejg(-.*)?@ar.homelinux.org
 
 works.

thanks, it really work!

 Now that's an interesting one.  I wonder if it will really work as a
 mangling without something like
 
   ...\.org(.invalid|)$
 
 on the end.  Not a bad idea, though!

i don't understand it. My english is very poor. 
Could you be more explicit please?

-- 
Eduardo Gargiulo
^ejg(-.*)?@ar\.homelinux\.org$



msg27639/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: group reply question

[David T-G]

Eduardo --

...and then Eduardo Gargiulo said...
% 
% David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
%  
%  ...and then Eduardo Gargiulo said...
%  % 
%  ...
%  % set alternates=egargiulo@ingdesi.(net|com)?
%  % set alternates=ejg(-.*)?@ar.homelinux.org
...
%  
%set alternates=egargiulo@ingdesi.(net|com)?|ejg(-.*)?@ar.homelinux.org
%  
%  works.
% 
% thanks, it really work!

Yay!  Happy to help.


% 
%  Now that's an interesting one.  I wonder if it will really work as a
%  mangling without something like
%  
%...\.org(.invalid|)$
%  
%  on the end.  Not a bad idea, though!
% 
% i don't understand it. My english is very poor. 
% Could you be more explicit please?

Certainly.  I assumed -- perhaps incorrectly -- that you were providing
an understandable expression that a person could use to see your address
but which would be useless to spam address trolling software; after all,
you certainly couldn't send to ^ejg(-.*)?@ar\.homelinux\.org$, right?
I wondered, though, if all of the junk in front of the @ might get eaten
anyway and so all that would remain would be the ar\.homelinux\.org$,
and that might quickly simplify down to a usable domain.  If you added
the (.invalid|) expression at the end, though, which says to either see
nothing or .invalid after .org, then it certainly wouldn't be usable as
a simple string.

Of course, if you weren't thinking about spam blocking, then all of this
is moot :-)


% 
% -- 
% Eduardo Gargiulo
% ^ejg(-.*)?@ar\.homelinux\.org$


HTH  HAND

:-D
-- 
David T-G  * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!




msg27642/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

group reply without loopback CC

[Andrew P. Bell]

When I do a group-reply, how can I automatically filter out *my* email
address?

I'm already writing all sent messages to folders with save_name and I'm
getting a second useless mail unless I manually remove my name from the
To or CC list


-- 
Andrew Bell

Re: group reply without loopback CC

[David Champion]

On 2002.03.01, in [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Andrew P. Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 When I do a group-reply, how can I automatically filter out *my* email
 address?
 
 I'm already writing all sent messages to folders with save_name and I'm
 getting a second useless mail unless I manually remove my name from the
 To or CC list.

unset metoo

Make sure that $alternates identifies you.

-- 
 -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago

Q: how to not reply to myself in a group-reply?

[David Petrou]

Let's say person A mails me and cc:'s person B.  Now, I want to reply
to all of them, so I do a `g'roup-reply.  It seems that mutt's default
behavior is to compose a message to person A and cc:'d to me and
person B.  What's the rationale for this?

I would prefer that 'g' only send the message to person A and cc: it
to person B.  That is, I don't want to receive a copy of the mail that
I've sent.  Is there a way to configure mutt to do this?  I saw
`metoo', but that appears to only apply to regular `r'eplies, and it
is also off by default.

thanks,
david

p.s.: please be sure to write directly to me, as i'm not on the
mailing list.  thanks!

Re: Q: how to not reply to myself in a group-reply?

[Nelson D. Guerrero]

 msg.pgp

Re: Q: how to not reply to myself in a group-reply?

[Will Yardley]

David Petrou wrote:
 
 I would prefer that 'g' only send the message to person A and cc: it
 to person B.  That is, I don't want to receive a copy of the mail that
 I've sent.  Is there a way to configure mutt to do this?  I saw
 `metoo', but that appears to only apply to regular `r'eplies, and it
 is also off by default.

i am pretty sure that metoo works for group reply as well.  my guess is
that you don't have 'alternates' set correctly or set at all... what is
your 'alternates' line?

i have this in my .muttrc

set alternates = (will|william).*@.*(newdream|infinitejazz\.net|unixverse\.com)
unset metoo

(the last shouldn't be required since it's off by default but i have it
anyway).

w

-- 
GPG Public Key:
http://infinitejazz.net/will/pgp/

Re: Q: how to not reply to myself in a group-reply?

[Benjamin Michotte]

On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 12:11:52PM, David Petrou wrote:
[clip]
set followup_to=no

 david
---end quoted text---

-- 

Para La Queja Mexica
Este Sueño De America
Celebramos La Aluna
De Siempre, Ahorita
   -- Bertrand Cantat, Tostaky (Le Continent)

   Benjamin Michotte[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  °v°  web  : http://www.baby-linux.net
  _o_  homepage : http://www.baby-linux.net/binny
   icq uin  : 99745024

Re: Q: how to not reply to myself in a group-reply?

[David Petrou]

 i am pretty sure that metoo works for group reply as well.  my guess is
 that you don't have 'alternates' set correctly or set at all... what is
 your 'alternates' line?

that was it!  thanks!

 w

david

no Group-Reply to myself

[Jack]

hi,

Question as the subject.  I dont need to get a CC when Group-Reply.  I
know,  I can remove it manually,  but is there any hook could be used
here?

thanks,

jack

Re: no Group-Reply to myself

[Michael Elkins]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 03:40:19PM -0500, Jack wrote:
 Question as the subject.  I dont need to get a CC when Group-Reply.  I
 know,  I can remove it manually,  but is there any hook could be used
 here?

unset metoo

If you have different addresses, make sure that you set up $alternates
appropriately so that it will remove all of your alternate addresses as
well.

me

remove from group reply

[Martin Keseg - Sun Slovakia - SE]

Hi

I'm using mutt 1.1.5 and I have q. if is possible tell mutt to remove my adress
from recipients when I'm group replying ?

unset metoo is in my understanding different but I tryed it and it does not
work.

-- 
   Keso
  don't worry about glory

Re: remove from group reply

[Thomas Roessler]

On 2000-02-25 10:42:12 +0100, Martin Keseg - Sun Slovakia - SE wrote:

 I'm using mutt 1.1.5 and I have q. if is possible tell mutt to
 remove my adress from recipients when I'm group replying ?

 unset metoo is in my understanding different but I tryed it and
 it does not
 work.

metoo is precisely the option you want to unset.  Note, however,
that you'll have to correctly set up your alternates.

-- 
http://www.guug.de/~roessler/