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