On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:50:38PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > # lists+mutt_users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx / 2003-12-12 08:50:27 -0500: > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:30:47PM +0100, T. Ribbrock wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 07:09:39AM -0600, Eugene Lee wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 06:59:04AM -0500, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > > > > : On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 06:17:24AM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: > > > > : > To: David Yitzchak Cohen <lists+mutt_users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > : > > > > : BTW - There's no need to CC me separately, as I'm subscribed to the > > > > list. > > > > > > > > I've seen this behavior with other people using some GUI mail client > > > > where they click on some "Reply" button and it replies to all recipients > > > > listed in To, Cc, From, etc. However, seeing this same behavior from a > > > > Mutt user... I am perplexed... > > > > > > I remember some discussion on another list about just this behaviour - > > > I've seen cases, where mutt would do a list reply + Cc when hitting > > > 'L'. I'd have to search for it, though. :-/ The only thing I remember > > > is that it happened to me before when I was certain I hit list reply. > > > > Hmm ... that's a tad annoying ... I mean, I don't mind much receiving > > an extra copy (Mutt deals nicely with copies), but looking through > > the headers of that message, I'm betting he probably hit group-reply > > instead. (It didn't CC me; it CCed the list. That's typical behavior > > in group-reply, since it TOs the sender and CCs everybody else - or TOs > > them after the sender, I forget. Either way, the list won't come before > > the sender in a group-reply, which matches the facts on the field. > > In list-reply, the list must at least be TOed, and should probably > > come before anybody else in the TO, at that ... facts on the ground > > match neither.) > > I've been always somwhat unsure about the exact way list-reply > works, and today I had an "accident" that a) makes a good example, > and b) is perhaps what you are wondering about. > > I sent a message to freebsd-hackers@, which I'm 'subscribe'd to, > using list-reply. The message I was following up on had these > headers: > > From: Kris Kennaway <kris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: freebsd-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <20040109003630.GA63979@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > References: <3FFC03E5.7010305@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > <200401071429.i07ETZMI068819@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > <20040107200838.GD86935@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > <20040108071730.GA53328@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > <20040108173642.GS54743@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > In-Reply-To: <20040108173642.GS54743@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i > Precedence: list It didn't have any MFT header? > my list-reply: > > From: Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: Kris Kennaway <kris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <20040109095246.GT54743@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@xxxxxxxxxxx> > References: <3FFC03E5.7010305@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > <200401071429.i07ETZMI068819@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > <20040107200838.GD86935@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > <20040108071730.GA53328@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > <20040108173642.GS54743@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > <20040109003630.GA63979@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > In-Reply-To: <20040109003630.GA63979@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i > Cc: freebsd-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@xxxxxxxxxxx> That's really weird if there was no MFT in the original. > Could someone tell me why mutt did this, and describe the exact > rules list-reply follows? If there was no MFT header in the original, I'm at a loss to explain any of what happened above. - Dave -- 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:
pgpgJHqMpX8ai.pgp
Description: PGP signature