On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 03:59:33PM EST, DervishD wrote: > * Charles Cazabon <mutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> dixit: > > > > Yes, I believe you can remap the list-reply function to the 'r' key > > > > for just that mail folder, using a folder-hook. > > > I didn't mention, sorry, but all mail is in the same folder O:) > > Well, fix that. Use maildrop or procmail or whatever else to sort > > your list mail into separate folders. It takes two minutes and > > buys you more efficiency. > > I don't like procmail (long story), I don't like fetchmail (not > so long story, but...). I like both very much, but I don't use either to filter mail into folders (except my SPAM filter, to move stuff into the spam folder). > In fact, I prefer to use the 'fetch-mail' > facility of Mutt and having all my incoming mail in the same folder. > For me is more practical and makes me deal with my mail faster. I've > used multiple folders in the past and was a pain in the arse. I > simply cannot remember to manage all folders, mostly because I use to > answer mail in a hurry: as you can see, is all a matter of bad > habits. I'm forced, in a way, to manage three folders of mail for > different accounts I manage online, and I end up ignoring two of > them. For me one Inbox is plain perfect. For what it's worth, a single inbox suits me 100% fine. In fact, my sent box is also my inbox :-) > > > > > The solution is to get a correct Reply-To, > > > > No, Reply-To: is not intended for this. > > > Why it is intended, then? I've used this as a mean to set the appropriate > > > reply address for messages sent to this list, so when people answers such > > > a > > > message, they reply to the list address :? Obviously I was wrong. > > Reply-To: is intended to tell others "if you want to send a > > (private) reply to me, use this address instead of the one in my > > From: header". There's various reasons for it. > > So I should set 'Reply-To' to my own address when sending mail or > I better stop munging headers and drop 'Reply-To'? If your own address is different from the one in the From: header, you should set Reply-To. If the From: header has your preferred address, though, there's no need for a Reply-To: header. > > Mail-Followup-To: tells people where they should send a followup message -- > > and can contain multiple addresses, so it can be used to /automatically/ say > > "please cc: me on list replies, because I'm not a subscriber" or "please > > reply > > only to the list, because I'm a list member and don't want extra copies of > > list messages". > > I've noticed that Mutt does this for me pretty good :)) Yup, the lists and subscribe commands (along with the followup_to variable) tell Mutt how to generate (or if to generate) the MFT header. > > > The fact is that when I receive a message from somebody on that > > > list who sets up its Reply-To: and I hit 'r' (group-reply), the reply > > > correctly goes to the list address > > See http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html and > > http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html ; this is a really old topic. > > A few minutes ago, in fact before receiving your mail, I googled > for the issue and came to the DJ Bernstein page. Now I realize why > Reply-To is harmful. Thanks a lot for the information, I really mean > it :) Thanks for literating me in this issue, I was doing a bad thing > with good intentions O:) > > But now the problem is just moved: the list won't add (obviously) > the Mail-Followup-To, but the MUA's of some users won't do neither. > Mozilla MUA, for example, cannot (AFAIK) add that kind of headers, > and I cannot ask all users to switch to a good MUA. I've been stuck > in the past with that 'Mutt is very difficult to configure' (it must > be true, because I haven't touch my config for two years. Oh, no, I > haven't done that because it works seamlessly). I'm not in the mood > of fighting people to use a good MUA :( This problem is substantially smaller, though, since anybody who uses his mailer's group reply function will end up mailing the list, even if you receive a duplicate (which procmail can filter if you want, but which Mutt handles quite nicely, anyway). In other words, if you do The Right Thing (TM), others won't have trouble making the right things happen :-) Perhaps a tad off-topic is the ignore_list_reply_to variable, which is extremely useful in lists that _do_ mangle the Reply-To header. Its default value is purely historical, but the variable should really be set on virtually all modern installations, in order to restore the functionality of the reply function (namely, to reply directly to the author). If you get used to asking yourself before every reply, "Do I want to followup to the list, or reply directly to the author?" you'll find that you naturally use the list-reply and reply functions at the appropriate times ... which may prompt you to change your original request, to remap 'r' to list-reply in the index view. (I have a hybrid solution, where 'r' in the pager prompts me to confirm I really want to reply privately. That helped an awful lot in the beginning, when I found myself always forgetting to list-reply. If you're used to doing stuff from the index menu, you can simply disable 'r' entirely in the index menu to get around the problem ... I think it's always good to take a look at a message before replying to it, just as a sanity check.) Enjoy, - Dave BTW - If you're curious about how exactly I accomplish this, that, or the next thing, my entire configuration is online: http://www.bigfatdave.com/dave/mutt/muttdir/ -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgp4p4qKgbzIo.pgp
Description: PGP signature