Hi Mark - On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:01:30 +0000, Mark Walters <markwalters1009 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the > > default > > in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of > > --no-reply-all)? > > In id:"87pqn5cg4g.fsf at yoom.home.cworth.org" cworth suggested using > --reply-to=sender vs. --reply-to=all (keeping the latter the default).
That is a sound proposal too, leaving room for extension if such need might arise. > However, one more significant choice is what to do on reply-to-sender to > an email from the user himself. My patch used the following logic: look > at the reply-to, from , to, cc lines until you find a non-user address > and use that line for the reply. My recollection is that this is roughly > what mutt does. That is a very good point, and one that my patch fails to address. > (*) I have a version of that patch-set which applies to master if that > would be useful to anyone, and I recently started writing tests in > preparation for re-submitting. Ah, it's old, no wonder I didn't know about it. Looking at the v2 of it that I found gmane, it looks like the approach is roughly the same. I think me passing the 'add' parameter makes things a bit more obvious and explicit, while your use of "g_mime_message_get_all_recipients (reply) == NULL" might be more robust (including handling reply to user's own message). Switching to new style argument parsing is probably something David will insist on, and that's a ready, independent patch in my set. On emacs side I think my patch is just slightly cleaner, but no big difference. How about you post what you have now as a reply to this thread, and let others be the judge? I really don't mind whether it's you or I who finishes this as long as we get the feature, and preferrably combining the best of what we both have. I'm also open to splitting this between you and me; just let me know what you think. BR, Jani.