Re: group-reply - bug or feature?
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:28:05PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> 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.
I checked again, and I'm dumb. I don't know what I was doing before (I
thought I tested it in a number of different cases, but now mutt is
mostly behaving as expected). Sorry for any wasted time, esp. on the dev
list.
HOWEVER, if one of the addresses has a semicolon in it (obviously a
typo), mutt seems to barf....
i.e.,:
From: Outlook Luser <someone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Outlook Luser <someone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'someone'" <address@xxxxxxxxxxx;>,
"'Someone Else'" <myaddress@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"'And Another'" <blah@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Just replies to the From address. If I remove the semicolon after
address@xxxxxxxxxxx (inside the angle bracket), group-reply works fine.
And no - the problem isn't just the explicit Reply-To.
w