On 27.02.13 15:59, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> I am *against* "Reply-To:" mudging by list software and believe it
> should *only* be employed by a poster wishing replies to his posts to
> be rec'd by a different account such as posting from work and wanting
> receipt at home.
Hmmm, I've tried using
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 02:43:42PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> If you've ever had to do this, you know it's tedious and annoying.
> Mutt is the only client I know of that gives you a choice in the
> matter, via the $reply-to variable.
I wondered why I couldn't find it. :) JFTR, it's $reply_to
* s. keeling [02-27-13 18:55]:
[...]
> Now why didn't "L" work on replying to you, yet "r" correctly (?!?)
> replies to m-u? You people. You're all different. Line up, will
> ya?!? :-P
If "L" did not work, you have something amiss in /etc/{Mm}uttrc or ~/.muttrc
For list mail I use "L" exclu
Incoming from Patrick Shanahan:
>
> ... justification :^). But we all must strive to do better. You,
> hopefully all of us, will reach an age where you have time to make
> the "effort", and realize that such things are just common courtesy.
Yeah, and one day *real soon now*, everyone will know
Incoming from Derek Martin:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 01:52:25PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> > Incoming from Derek Martin:
> > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > > > > The **ONLY** way to not get an extra copy is **NOT** to get CC'd in
> > > > > the
> >
> > I'v
* Jeremy Kitchen [02-27-13 15:15]:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:55:15PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> > > Responding to "list" mail *should* be to the "list" unless op has
> > > *specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical
> > > and inefficient.
> >
> > Here's where I dis
* Derek Martin [02-27-13 13:56]:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
[...]
> > Responding to "list" mail *should* be to the "list" unless op has
> > *specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical
> > and inefficient.
>
> Here's where I disa
* Derek Martin [02-27-13 17:29]:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > To my understanding, list software does not decide, except concerning MFT.
> > *The* problem is users not responding to list, "L", but rather to all, "g".
>
> For the record, I'll also note
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> To my understanding, list software does not decide, except concerning MFT.
> *The* problem is users not responding to list, "L", but rather to all, "g".
For the record, I'll also note that I rarely actually do this, even
though
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 01:52:25PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> Incoming from Derek Martin:
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > > > The **ONLY** way to not get an extra copy is **NOT** to get CC'd in the
>
> I've just got to say, as much as I think this's intere
Incoming from Jeremy Kitchen:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:55:15PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> > > Responding to "list" mail *should* be to the "list" unless op has
> > > *specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical
> > > and inefficient.
> >
> > Here's where I disagree.
* Derek Martin [02-27-13 15:45]:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 03:13:43PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
[...]
> > While you disagree with my "general" and "incomplete" statement, I do
> > agree with you that there are times when a private reply is prudent
>
> Fair enough, but I'll just say that I m
Incoming from Derek Martin:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > > The **ONLY** way to not get an extra copy is **NOT** to get CC'd in the
I've just got to say, as much as I think this's interesting, this's
not mutt related. mutt already does this stuff correctl
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 03:13:43PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Derek Martin [02-27-13 13:56]:
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> [...]
> > > Responding to "list" mail *should* be to the "list" unless op has
> > > *specifically* requested direct mail. A
Dear Salve, Thomas,
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 08:36:44PM +0100, Thomas Wallrafen wrote:
> Hello once more,
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 08:28:43PM +0100, Thomas Wallrafen wrote:
> > Hej,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 08:14:13PM +0100, Salve Håkedal wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Is it possible to scp an
* Derek Martin [02-27-13 13:56]:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
[...]
> > Responding to "list" mail *should* be to the "list" unless op has
> > *specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical
> > and inefficient.
>
> Here's where I disa
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:55:15PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> > Responding to "list" mail *should* be to the "list" unless op has
> > *specifically* requested direct mail. All other action is illogical
> > and inefficient.
>
> Here's where I disagree. There have been many, many times when I
Hello once more,
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 08:28:43PM +0100, Thomas Wallrafen wrote:
> Hej,
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 08:14:13PM +0100, Salve Håkedal wrote:
> > My main machine don't have openoffice or similar installed, but
> > sometimes I need to use openoffice on an attachment. I now do that
Hej,
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 08:14:13PM +0100, Salve Håkedal wrote:
> My main machine don't have openoffice or similar installed, but
> sometimes I need to use openoffice on an attachment. I now do that by
> scp-ing files to that machine and then ssh -X into that machine.
>
> To scp an attachmen
My main machine don't have openoffice or similar installed, but
sometimes I need to use openoffice on an attachment. I now do that by
scp-ing files to that machine and then ssh -X into that machine.
To scp an attachment to the other machine, I first save it from the
attachment menu. I'd like to s
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 08:00:24AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > The **ONLY** way to not get an extra copy is **NOT** to get CC'd in the
> > first place (and vice versa; i.e you in To and list in CC). It is
> > disgusting that the list software decides whether to honor the headers
> > or not!!
21 matches
Mail list logo
