Re: group-reply - bug or feature?
* Derek Martin <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [Jun 20. 2005 23:28]:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 10:06:12AM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
> > If there are multiple addresses in the "To: " field, group-reply doesn't
> > seem to reply to those addresses, even if they're not in $alternates.
> > Tested with mutt1.5.9, and tried with "-F/dev/null".
>
> On a related note, IIRC, mutt used to reply intelligently (circa mutt
> 1.4) if you executed group-reply on a message that you sent yourself.
> Now, it seems if you do this, it prompts you with a blank To: field.
> This isn't really all that useful...
>
> I think ideally, it should place the address(es) from the To: field of
> the original e-mail, and copy the CC: as is. If I'm not making myself
> understood, please feel free to ask for clarification.
This have been rejected in the past, with the reason not to bloat mutt
with another config option.
--
Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk
"Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic
and totally illogical, with just a little bit more effort?"
-- A. P. J.
--- mutt-1.5.5/init.h
+++ mutt-1.5.5/init.h
@@ -2174,6 +2174,13 @@
** .pp
** Also see the ``$$force_name'' variable.
*/
+ { "send_group_reply_to", DT_BOOL, R_NONE, OPTSENDGROUPREPLYTO, 0 },
+ /*
+ ** .pp
+ ** This variable controls how group replies are done.
+ ** When set, all recepients listet in "To:" are set in the
+ ** "To:" header again, else in the "CC", which is the default.
+ */
{ "score", DT_BOOL, R_NONE, OPTSCORE, 1 },
/*
** .pp
--- mutt-1.5.5/mutt.h
+++ mutt-1.5.5/mutt.h
@@ -404,6 +404,7 @@
OPTSAVEADDRESS,
OPTSAVEEMPTY,
OPTSAVENAME,
+ OPTSENDGROUPREPLYTO,
OPTSCORE,
OPTSIGDASHES,
OPTSIGONTOP,
--- mutt-1.5.5/send.c
+++ mutt-1.5.5/send.c
@@ -540,8 +540,16 @@
if ((flags & SENDGROUPREPLY) && (!in->mail_followup_to || hmfupto !=
M_YES))
{
/* if(!mutt_addr_is_user(in->to)) */
+ if (option (OPTSENDGROUPREPLYTO))
+ {
+ rfc822_append (&out->to, in->to);
+ rfc822_append (&out->cc, in->cc);
+ }
+ else
+ {
rfc822_append (&out->cc, in->to);
rfc822_append (&out->cc, in->cc);
+ }
}
}
return 0;