On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:46:19PM +0200, Rado S wrote: > Return-receipts being standard replies with a preformatted content > (nothing special about them), mutt _does_ support them, just not
Well, the problem is that what you describe is not all. Additional the feature (to be comparable) it is a notification that the sender asked for a return receipt and it is a one-action-thing to confirm this. Off course it is possible to workaround the missing builtin support. But don't talk about it like it would be anything other then a workaround, cause that is what it basically is. > built-in as you would like it to be so that you don't have to tweak > the config as freely as you must, sorry: _can_. Imagine all that You keep talking like it was a simple configuration change, but thats not true. Tell me: Why do you keep telling something thats _untrue_? Consider the truth: It would be possible to achieve most of the requested feature by writting a script that is spawned when a message is displayed, using message-hooks. Its also possible to ask a question in this script. So we reached the goal, didn't we? Yes, we did, but: We must depend upon at least two additional components (a script and an interpreter), the question is not well-integrated into mutt and so the solution is: error-prone and not as comfortable as it could. So it is possible, but it is everything but a configurable option. > It's not a bug but a feature that not everything that is possible is > built-in but must/can be accomplished elsewhere. I agree. But just because it is a feature it is not a feature in *every* case. -Patrick
