On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:50:03PM +0000, Bruno Postle wrote: > I needed to reply to a list posting, but I knew the list server was > down. So I used group-reply to make sure that my reply went to both > the original poster and the list. > > ..but mutt in this situation simply honours the mft header, my email > never reached the intended recipient since he wasn't listed in his > own mft header (since his mutt detected that he was posting to a > valid list). In the case above, mutt did the right thing. The user's own mutt did not include him on the MFT header, because it understood that he would get a copy if sent to the list. Your mutt likewise did the correct thing, replying only to the list, which under normal circumstances would also have gone to the user. Unfortunately, mutt is still just a program... we can not teach it to read minds. The current behavior seems to be the right behavior for the vast majority of cases, which is the best we can do. If you have a corner case, like a down list server, which mutt can't programmatically anticipate, then you need to deal with it yourself. Personally, I would like to see a quad-option variable for ignore_reply_to and ignore_mail_follow_up_to, because certain people and/or list-like entities have a tendency to set these in annoying ways. For example, because most people foolishly still do not use mutt ( ;-) ), it is still fairly common for people to reply to a mailing list with the OP's address in the To: header, and the mailing list's address in the CC header. Some people who do this also set their Reply-To: header to the list address. This is very annoying if you want to reply to them privately. This message does not meet mutt's criteria for honoring ignore_list_reply_to because the mailing list address appears in the Cc: header, not in the To: header. Cases where this happens are admittedly rare; but thanks to human nature, the rarity of them is precisely what makes them so annoying. If you were accustomed to fixing this frequently, it would not be so bad (or potentially embarrasing). -- 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:
pgpxIJqXapoJe.pgp
Description: PGP signature