Re: [un]alternates not quite working
David Yitzchak Cohen <lists+mutt_users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > [snip alternates vs. unalternates]
> > Yet mutt still treats these addresses as "me" when replying, etc, even with
> > reply-self explicitly unset.
>
> Mutt has no "exclusion" functionality built-in. In other words,
> unalternates will only work for exact tokens you've already inserted
> with alternates statements.
Ugh. Thanks for clarifying; I thought the alternates/unalternates
functionality was more like:
IF address matches an RE from the alternates command,
AND it does not match any RE from the unalternates command,
THEN the address refers to "me".
> If you want to exclude stuff, you'll need to explicitely exclude the gunk in
> your alternates statement using regex syntax.
Okay. "Match everything but these strings" is one of the uglier things to do
with an RE, which is why I thought unalternates would work the way I read the
documentation -- it would be more usable, in fact. Maybe I should file a
request on mutt-dev.
Charles