On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 06:37:40AM +0930, Not Zed wrote: > On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 20:40, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 11:35:56PM +0930, Not Zed wrote: > > > > Finally, we change the algorithm for "Reply to List" to first look for a > > > > "List-Address" property on the folder the original message came from. > > > > If it exists, then it is used. > > This is more or less what mutt does: > > subscribe (... SNIP ...) [EMAIL PROTECTED] > How? What do you do, just say it? Type it in a shell? vi? click a > million buttons?
Just edit the very well documented muttrc, change that option.
> > > What is unreliable about the reply to list button? If that feature
> > > doesn't work, it should be worked on. If it can't be made reliable then
> > > what is the use of having it.
> > It assumes the TO: is the mailing list, which is sometimes false (oh,
> > the email I replied, for instance).
> Well then that was a pretty ill thought out idea wasn't it? But then if
> it was upto me, it would never have existed in the first place if it
> wasn't implementable in a reliable fashion.
95% of the time it's reliable. The other 5% are on things that no
cmputer can do without some human help (ergo, subscribe ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) even if it's help that's configured to be
done automatically.
> > Again, subscribe ... is the solution (however that is implemented in
> > evolution).
> > > ideally for their specific usage pattern. Otherwise its mainly just
> > > bloat.
> > If it's done as per my 'mutt' alike preference, it won't be bloat since
> > it's way simpler!
> Unfortunately we can't just have a line in a config file or a simple
> command line interface for it. Oh if only.
No, but in the general mail configuration you could have, for instance a
text area, where the user would put the email addresses of mailing lists
he's subscribing (if separated by new line, white space, some other
character, that's just implementation details). Same effect, and an easy
thing to do.
> We need a structure to store folder preferences (which we need anyway,
> something probably exists but it must be too unusable since we dont even
> know about it), we need a gui to manage those preferences (which usually
> more than doubles the work).
Yes, but, as you said, the reply-to-list problem is independent of
having mail folders. A simple text area in the global email preferences
(such as the path for gpg, for instance) is enough.
> Then we probably need a 'wizard' to help you set it up the first time,
> which are really ugly and painful to write, especially if you want to
> try and merge it with the preference gui as well. Oh, and if we have a
> preference gui it probably has to merge with the current global
> configuration window, which is more work.
I don't think a wizzard is needed for this option....
> Then we need to hack in another feature to the reply code, which already
> has quite a few features (some of which *dont even work right*) - this
> is the bloat that then everyone has to live with for the rest of time,
> and also, someone has to *maintain* for the rest of time (usually not
> the original implementor either).
This would be just one simple extra check before choosing the email to
reply _when_ reply-to-list is chosen. I see no need for a polimorphic
Reply functionality.
> This is the same problem that plagues, say, word. It does everything,
> and people complain about how big it is, but *most* people only use it
> to write *plain text* emails and some use it to write simply formatted
> memos. This same used to be said about emacs, but really, emacs is tiny
> compared to even evolution, yet can do so much more.
I don't think this would be a lot more than a couple or three 25 lines
pages of screen. Or better yet, given the power of evolution's
libraries, it shouldn't be a lot of work, why try to make it seem so?
> Although this would be useful to a few people, most users wont use it,
> even if it would benefit them.
<sarcasm>Well, let's see, most users don't wven use crypto... let's scrap gpg
support, and, btw, never give a thought on x509 support either, after
all, most don't use it!</sarcasm>
This kind of argument has very little substance as even groo can plainly
see.
> Anyway, Colin will go play with it, and if it works out ok it'll
> probably go in at some point, even if it is 'bloat' :)
Let's see what may come out, plenty ideas have sprouted in this thread.
Cheers,
ps: and keep up the good work
ps2: I'm currently being forced to use mutt because the latest snapshots
don't have ssl enabled, and I can only access my email by an ssh account
to a text only machine :)
ps3: there's no need to reply to all, can't you do reply-to-list?
with reply-to-all I'm being charged twice for your email, and no,
changing isp won't help that here.
msg01543/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
