Re: CC'ing list people but not getting CC'd?
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 08:56:19AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Kai Grossjohann <kai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2007.08.18.0202 +0200]:
> > Which email client does he use? He claims that MFT is used for replies,
> > but the name suggests that it should be used for followups, not replies.
>
> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
>
> Sure, MFT implies followup, but isn't that pretty much the same as
> list-reply?
Well, we have three things: followups, list-replies, and replies.
Followups and list-replies are quite similar in most practical
situations, but replies are quite different.
> I think his issue is with:
>
> - you like CCs to the list, so you set MFT on all your mails to
> the list address as well as yours.
> - I see your mail and reply to it, mutt sees the MFT and preserves
> it. It needs not add the list address, and I don't want it to
> add mine, so it copies the MFT header with the list address as
> well as yours to my mail.
If you reply, then it gets sent to me only.
If you followup, then the list address will be added since it is in MFT
(as you say).
> - Someone else replies to *my* mail in the same way, and his
> mailer honours MFT, so no *you* also get CC'd on the reply, even
> though the subject may have diverged and you're not interested
> anymore.
I asked for Ccs, so I got what I deserved.
If I subscribe to a list, then I get all postings, even though I might
only be interested in part of the topics. That's the same thing, isn't
it?
> I generally don't mind following threads to which I have posted,
> even if they diverge (I have a good thread/subject blacklisting in
> place). However, Junio doesn't, and at least wrt git, he's way more
> active, so I ought to really respect his preferences.
It's not clear to me what Junio wants. If we wants no Cc's, then he can
just put in an MFT header that excludes himself. Shouldn't he then be a
great fan of MFT since it allows him to express what he wants?
Sorry, perhaps some of this is bogus, I am quite confused by now.
Also, my Gnus terminology might not map well to a Mutt audience.
Apologies for this. For example, I don't really know what is a
list-reply, so the above could be wrong. In Gnus speak, there is only
reply (to author) and followup (to author and all recipiencts, unless
modified by MFT). (And then there are "wide replies" and "very wide
replies" that I never understood.)
Perhaps Mutt users mean something different when they talk about replies
or followups.
Kai