Re: subscribe vs. lists
Thomas Roessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, the new subscribe command is equivalent to what was formerly known as "lists". "lists" is essentially a weaker version now which only affects the list-reply function. (Partially, the naming is due to the fact that I couldn't think about a better name than "lists" for known, but unsubscribed lists - "unsubscribe" would have been against the systematic of the un* commands.) What about 'nonsubscribe'? Charles -- Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
Re: subscribe vs. lists
On 2000-02-14 15:49:21 -0800, Michael Elkins wrote: Not sure, I don't know what the motivate for having the "subscribe" command separate from the "lists" command was. Imagine the case that you (1) know about a list but (2) aren't subscribed to it. Further, imagine there are discussions CCed to you which go to this list, or there are cross-list discussions (think cypherpunks vs. coderpunks). On the one hand, you certainly want to be able to use list-reply on such cross-list discussions. On the other hand, you don't want to add a mail-followup-to header to replies which may not go to the list you are subscribed to - these headers, as generated automatically, would make sure that replies certainly won't reach you. The same is valid for messages you send to lists you are not subscribed to, but which are known to you. -- http://www.guug.de/~roessler/
Re: subscribe vs. lists
Not sure, I don't know what the motivate for having the "subscribe" command separate from the "lists" command was. Check out the archives for mutt-dev from last year November. tlr posted an explanation why the distinction between "known" and "subscribed" mailing lists would be useful. (I'll fwd it to you in private if you prefer). While this reasoning may be valid, I never liked the new subscribe command. I think it's a case where mutt tries to be more clever than the user. It doesn't even work properly in the general case (how to deal with ml's as of yet unknown to the user?). And, where there not some changes wrt generation of the m-f-t header recently, which may or may not affect teh usefulness of lists/subscribe?
subscribe vs. lists
I could swear I read on this list not too long ago that the command "subscribe" would replace the "lists" command in the muttrc to define what mailing lists mutt should recognize the user as being subscribed to. I thought this change was going to take place in version 1.0.1, but AFAKCT it hasn't. Is this change still in the works, or has it been abandoned? -- // [EMAIL PROTECTED] //
Re: subscribe vs. lists
On 2000-02-14 01:10:40 -0500, Russell Hoover wrote: I thought this change was going to take place in version 1.0.1, but AFAKCT it hasn't. Is this change still in the works, or has it been abandoned? The change will be in version 1.2. 1.0.1 is a bug-fix release of 1.0 with minimal changes, not containing any of the more interesting changes done to the code in the meantime. -- http://www.guug.de/~roessler/
Re: subscribe vs. lists
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 11:04:19AM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote: The change will be in version 1.2. 1.0.1 is a bug-fix release of 1.0 with minimal changes, not containing any of the more interesting changes done to the code in the meantime. The documentation on this subject really needs to be cleaned up before 1.2. It's not clear what the effect of setting these is. I missed the discussion about this and only discovered the other day that I was not generating the m-f-t header field. :-) me -- pgp key available from http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~me/elkins-pgp-key.asc PGP signature
Re: subscribe vs. lists
Michael Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 14 Feb 2000: The documentation on this subject really needs to be cleaned up before 1.2. It's not clear what the effect of setting these is. I missed the discussion about this and only discovered the other day that I was not generating the m-f-t header field. :-) That's odd. If you have a .muttrc file from 1.0 (or 1.0.1) and move to 1.1.x, then it should -- as far as I understand -- still recognise the address as a valid list, and generate a MFT header. However, the contents of the header will be wrong, indicating a reply should go to both to the list and your own address. Hmm, is that a bug or have I misunderstood something, or what is going on? I'll try to remember to do some testing with the "lists" command under 1.1.3 later to see if I can figure anything out... Mikko -- // Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy scifi, the Corrs / "Personally, I want my computer's memory to be more reliable than mine." /.
Re: subscribe vs. lists
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 01:04:05AM +0200, Mikko Hänninen wrote: That's odd. If you have a .muttrc file from 1.0 (or 1.0.1) and move to 1.1.x, then it should -- as far as I understand -- still recognise the address as a valid list, and generate a MFT header. However, the contents of the header will be wrong, indicating a reply should go to both to the list and your own address. That's definitely not what the code is doing. I resorted to using gdb to trace the call to mutt_set_followup_to() and it definitely only looks for mailing lists using the "subscribe"d list, not the "lists" list. Hmm, is that a bug or have I misunderstood something, or what is going on? I'll try to remember to do some testing with the "lists" command under 1.1.3 later to see if I can figure anything out... Not sure, I don't know what the motivate for having the "subscribe" command separate from the "lists" command was. me -- pgp key available from http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~me/elkins-pgp-key.asc PGP signature
