<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Fwd: Re: group-reply - bug or feature?



Sorry if this appears more than once...  I sent this earlier today,
but it doesn't seem to be reaching the list.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 12:32:58PM +0100, Paul Walker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:57:22AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
> > Whether the original To header goes into a reply's To or CC header.
> > Current behavior is CC, behavior desired by some is To.  I don't
> > really care, but I'm used to the current behavior.
> 
> Ah. My preference, assuming we're talking about a group-reply to a mail sent
> by someone else, is very definitely for the existing behaviour.

Well, I guess I need to clarify.  Actually the case that I
specifically have a complaint with (and what prompted me to re-raise
the issue initially) is the case where I am group-replying to a
message I sent myself (i.e. I am the sender and one of the
recipients).  In this case, mutt prompts with a blank To: line, which
I think is brain-dead -- IMO group-reply should NEVER do that, unless
the original message had no recipient headers (which I believe is
possible, for example by telnetting to the mail server and
self-constructing the message).  It should, IMO, copy the headers
exactly from the message to which I am group-replying.  Note
particularly that this seems to be irrespective of the value of
$reply_self, which (now that i'm looking at it more closely) I believe
is a bug.  I'll submit a bug report for it, if need be.

For messages where you are group-replying to a message sent by someone
else, I would agree that the current behavior is fine.


-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  Thank the spammers.

Attachment: pgpX0xzttenI1.pgp
Description: PGP signature