On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 03:02:49PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 02:03:12PM -0400, John J. Foster wrote: > > Derek, > > > > You make a lot of wonderful points in your post (all snipped because > > that's really not why I'm replying). > > Thanks John. You very welcome. > > > I'm not sure if it's possible now, but is there any way to keep this > > thread OFF of mutt-users? It's getting to be quite a pain. > > Sorry... I removed mutt-users from at least one of my posts, but > forgot to keep doing it. I'll be more concientous about it in the > future. It was someone else who posted the original thread there... > Many replies will go to both places. > > FWIW, I do think that in general, the users who don't necessarily > follow mutt-dev may well have valuable input to offer w/regard to > whether a feature should be implemented or not, so I do think that > such questions should be raised there. Also the thread has raised > some interest; 6 messages in the thread appeared only on mutt-users. > I totally agree that users should give more input. My problem isn't so much reading the same arguments twice, (which either re-enforces my own ideas or pisses me off again), but rather that I'm subscribed using different names (so that subfolder addressing works automagically). This causes "list reply" to fail to one or the other list, depending on which folder I'm in at the time. John -- If voting could change anything, it would be illegal
Attachment:
pgpTKTLSud9Gy.pgp
Description: PGP signature