On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 at 8:36:34 pm BST, Glyn Millington <glyn.milling...@gmail.com> wrote:
> mail-alias - I believe this is defined in bbdb.el You can insert that > field into a record using the instructions offered here: > > http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/BbdbMailingLists Thanks for that. I've tried it and it works exactly as described. I never know whether EmacsWiki BBDB pages are up-to-date for BBDBv3 or not, so I tend to ignore them. I'll annotate that page to say it applies to v3. Before I do, can anyone confirm that these instructions are unchanged from v2? WRT this, from the wiki page: > You also need to tell the BBDB to define the mail abbreviations for > you. This depends on the mail package you use – here is the code for > your ~/.emacs for both plain mail-mode, or the message-mode that comes > with Gnus. > > (add-hook 'mail-setup-hook 'bbdb-define-all-aliases) > (add-hook 'message-setup-hook 'bbdb-define-all-aliases) I wonder what the use-case is for *not* enabling this by default, say as part of `bbdb-insinuate-*'? Should automatic mail-alias marshalling not be the default behavior? What would anyone gain by *not* having it? Turning it off should be the configurable option, not turning it on, don't you think? Otherwise, a powerful and (for many years now) standard contact-list/address-book feature may lie undiscovered and unused for many months -- as it did for me. The current approach impedes user access and presents barriers, for no concomitant benefit, IMO. I always advocate an opinionated, batteries-included, no-config approach wherever possible. What do you all think? The term "mail alias" itself seems to me to be poorly chosen, bespeaking an inward-looking, comp-sci-technical, "historical reasons" (IOW no reason) viewpoint rather than an outward-looking, user- and usability-focused one. Much as I love the Unix way, this is an example of where Unix tradition sucks and is really user hostile. We're talking about *lists* and/or *groups*, not "aliases". *Those* are the words most users will expect and look for; those are the words BBDB should use. I suggest we standardize on "group". I can rename and write a `define-obsolete-*-alias' declaration for each existing `*-mail-alias' declaration and -- the important bit -- update the doc strings. That seems consistent with the way v3 has tried to rename lots of opaque and unintuitive "legacy" symbol names thus far. Maintainers can then gradually eliminate the "obsolete symbol" compiler warnings over time. Before I (attempt to) code this and submit a patch, can anyone see a reason I've missed why it's a bad idea? -- Phil Hudson http://hudson-it.ddns.net @UWascalWabbit PGP/GnuPG ID: 0x887DCA63 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y _______________________________________________ bbdb-info@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bbdb-info BBDB Home Page: http://bbdb.sourceforge.net/
