Re: wish: list-reply replies to too many (should only to MFT)
I'm sorry for having used a non-informative subject. Changed it.
Must have been a bad day. :-(
[=- TAKAHASHI Tamotsu wrote on Wed 16.Nov'05 at 20:34:49 +0900 -=]
> > recently I learned that list-reply replies to a subscribed ML
> > _in addition_ to MFT. Intuitively I expect that replies are
> > _only_ sent to MFT (much like Reply-To:).
>
> Is this what you meant:
> | { detailed setup }
Yes.
> Although I don't know whether this is intended,
> this COULD be right, because
> 0) bugs-any is not (declared as) a list, and
> 1) you can use group-reply instead.
The observed behaviour matches the documented one.
It's therefore no code-error, rather an intention/ design error.
That's the passage I mean:
------ QUOTE BEGIN ------
Conversely, when group-replying or list-replying to a message
which has a Mail-Followup-To header, mutt will respect this header
if the ``$honor_followup_to'' configuration variable is set. Using
list- reply will in this case also make sure that the reply goes
to the mailing list, even if it's not specified in the list of
recipients in the Mail-Followup-To.
------- QUOTE END -------
When working with lists I want to use list-reply, not group-reply
just to bypass MFT/list-reply deficiency (from my perspective, of
course ;).
When you want replies to go to a known/ subscribed list, then the
list can be added to MFT.
But if you don't want them to go to a known list, but instead to a
specific address like bugs-any, which forwards replies to the
known lists anyway, then you can not avoid it automatically
because of the auto-addition of the list.
You'll have to strip the list(s) manually.
This is where the duplicate replies for bts threads come from.
If MFT were fixed and bts would always produce MFT with bugs-any
only, we'd not have duplicates anymore when people use list-reply.
(the bts/bugs-any scenario is just an example, I'm not asking for
mutt-code solution just for this case, it might apply elsewhere, too,
that the lists get into the way of intended replies).
> But the next case is certainly a bug:
>
> | Muttrc has "set honor_followup_to",
> | "subscribe mutt-dev" and "lists bugs-any".
> | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | When a message has MFT:<bugs-any> and TO:<mutt-dev>,
> | a <list-reply> to the message will be addressed
> | TO:<mutt-dev> and CC:<bugs-any>.
>
> The reply should be TO:<bugs-any>.
Aside from this error ...
> > Can we change list-reply to send only to MFT if that exists?
>
> Sounds good. Which do you expect?:
>
> | If a MFT header has a list's address and a non-list address,
> | <list-reply> should be sent to:
> |
> | 0) both <list> and <non-list> or
> | 1) only <list>
0) of course: independent of other settings replies should go
_only_ to MFT and to _all_ in MFT, when MFT exists.
> Wait.
> Before changing the code, we should read the manual:
>
> | list-reply (default: L)
> | {...}
>
> "honor any Mail-Followup-To headers" - What does it mean?
>
> No matter whether MFT's addresses are lists or not,
> a <list-reply> should be sent to all addresses in MFT?
> Wow, that's very easy to code! ;)
Before a solution/ patch there must be a decision whether there
is some reason against this change.
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
Even if it seems insignificant, in fact EVERY effort counts
for a shared task, at least to show your deserving attitude.