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

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, som

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lity 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

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

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

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

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. > >

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

y. 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 i

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sentially 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 recipi

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

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:" >> >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

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

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

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

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

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,

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

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

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

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 thoug

Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

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

group-reply Bcc

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

Re: what is the command of group-reply

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 &g

Re: what is the command of group-reply

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 m

what is the command of group-reply

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

Re: group reply [SOLVED] now alternates

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

Re: group reply [SOLVED] now alternates

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,

Re: group reply [SOLVED] now alternates

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 wa

Re: group reply

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 aut

Re: group reply

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

Re: group reply

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

Re: group reply

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

Re: group reply

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

Re: group reply

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

Re: group reply

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

group reply

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

Re: List reply + group reply combined

(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 we

Re: List reply + group reply combined

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

List reply + group reply combined

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:". O

Re: List reply + group reply combined

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 rep

Re: List reply + group reply combined

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

Re: List reply + group reply combined

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

Re: List reply + group reply combined

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,

Re: List reply + group reply combined

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

Re: Change to group reply from compose map?

e 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?

, 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 t

Change to group reply from compose map?

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)

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.

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

* 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* 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

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

* 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Ask for group reply

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

Ask for group reply

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

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

group reply exclude self?

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?

-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:

Re: group reply exclude self?

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:

Re: group reply exclude self?

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

removing self from group reply

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

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

Re: removing self from group reply

* 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

* 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

Re: removing self from group reply

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

Re: removing self from group reply

* 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

group reply question

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

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

Re: group reply question

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

Re: group reply question

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.

Re: group reply question

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

Re: group reply question

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

group reply without loopback CC

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

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

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

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

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

msg.pgp

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

, 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

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

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]

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

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

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

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

remove from group reply

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

Re: remove from group reply

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

  1   2   >