Re: Mailing list reply
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, October 5 at 01:10 PM, quoth Breen Mullins:
>> So, have you tried making it this:
>>
>> subscribe '^listname@mail\.listname\.com$'
>>
>> That way the only address that is recognized as a list is the one the list
>> specifies in the List-Post header. Unless something else is going on, that
>> should prevent you from replying to listname@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> That's what I've decided to do for this one.
That's probably the simplest solution.
> If the smiley means that you think that solution is overkill, I
> agree...
Yup!
>> I'm assuming the List-Post header was used for cases when a person
>> is too lazy to add that mailing list to their list of mailing lists
>> (e.g. with the subscribe or list commands).
>
> I suspect that it's a Mailman default - the box running the list is
> mail . The list is non-technical and nobody there would know what a
> subscribe command is.
Oh, right, no, you misunderstood me. I'm assuming that the reason
mutt's <list-reply> function was changed to use the List-Post header
was because sometimes mutt users are too lazy to add their mailing
lists to their muttrc files (i.e. by adding 'subscribe listname' or
'list listname' commands).
>> Perhaps a variable could be added to turn that off? Or change the
>> behavior to only use the List-Post header when no other mailing list
>> addresses have been found?
>
> That's the kind of thing I was thinking of, but it sounds a bit dicey in
> practice. If you're doing a list-reply to a message where there's a
> List-Post header, could you accidentally drop an intended recipient?
Quite possibly. This is the real problem, of course: when you're
working around people being idiots, there's rarely a good, consistent
way to do it. Whatever method you use will be broken by some idiot
down the line who didn't conform to the usual idiocy.
>> P.S. I've often thought something like an addr-hook, that forces specific
>> addresses to be treated as something else (akin to a charset-hook, kinda)
>> would be pretty useful, and such a thing would solve the problem here, as
>> long as mutt eliminates duplicate recipients. For example:
>>
>> addr-hook listname@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx listname@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Now _that's_ an interesting idea! I tend to get mails addressed to
> collections of people - a church group, for example - where one
> recipient has changed her address. (Old directories take a long time to
> die.) With an addr-hook, I could make the change and a group reply would
> go to the new address even if the message had only the old address for
> that person.
That's another one excellent use-case. :) I'll forward this to
mutt-devel.
~Kyle
- --
Holding on to anger, resentment and hurt only gives you tense muscles,
a headache and a sore jaw from clenching your teeth. Forgiveness gives
you back the laughter and the lightness in your life.
-- Joan Lunden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!
iD8DBQFHBqtBBkIOoMqOI14RAqDnAKDtFiI4FDWL+nUFOXUB7QBj3VGyWQCfcG/x
s2N2Od1LCrMLbjmtoMUqckk=
=P+Od
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----