Re: List reply + group reply combined
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 11:22:53PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 04.02.16 12:13, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:51:54PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > > > OK, as is, "To:" becomes the sender of the post to which we're replying, > > > i.e. the person to whom we actually are replying, and "CC:" is the list > > > and all the other recipients of the prior post, i.e. the CC recipients. > > > The effect of that is the same as your proposed aesthetic variant, AIUI. > > > > For one this is not just aesthetic, because putting a recipient in > > "CC:" tells him or her "you might be interested in this" while > > "To:" means "I'm talking specifically to you". I make this > > distinction frequently and may often not read a message thoroughly > > if I'm only in "CC:". > > That is precisely why it is correct for the prior poster, i.e. the only > person to whom we _are_ directly replying, to be alone on "To:", as > currently occurs. When using list-reply the prior poster is not the main recipient, and that's what we're talking about. You start a discussion on a mailing list with every subscriber or reader "implicitly" cc'ed. Staying with the example of gcc-patches: Many people (including me) don't subscribe the list but check it manually for topics interesting to them, so usually the "courtesy copy" is the only message they usually get. Still, replies should go to the list with "courtesy copies" in CC. This model is not well supported by mutt, i.e. you have to hand edit the recipient list (which I do all the time) or live with the main recipient (the list) in CC and/or other people who may not even have written a single message in "To:". > As you have defined it, and I am tempted to concur, it is the proposed > variant which would be incorrect, if anything is. Your model of reading gcc-patches may be different and well supported by mutt. "list-reply-keep-others-in-cc", not for a group reply with special handling for list addresses. > Still, if desperate, you could: > > set edit_headers=yes > > and shuffle recipients about while composing the reply. If that doesn't > suit, then ISTR that a post-edit filter could be written and > automatically run on exit from the editor, e.g. a few lines of awk. > (If not automatically, then it can definitely be run manually once back > in the compose menu.) I'll try that if there's no easier way built into mutt. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt IBM Germany
Re: List reply + group reply combined
On 05.02.16 08:54, Michelle Konzack wrote: > On 2016-02-04 11:34:49 Ben Boeckel hacked into the keyboard: > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 23:22:53 +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > > > The group of list members who are listed CC recipients who "might be > > > interested in this", receive individual "courtesy copies" in addition to > > > the list copy, which is often more than they want, as it is.¹ > > > > Mailman has an option to not send you the list copy if you're on the CC > > list. > > Which break "Reply-to-List" because your > "Cc:" has not the List-Header anymore... That need not happen, if mutt is adequately configured. When my procmail rules faithfully mimic the above, by sending the list copy (it almost always is the second to arrive) to "duplicates", the CC serves just as well for Reply-to-List. Mutt does not require a List-Header for Reply-to-List to function. All that is necessary for mutt to pick up the list in the CC header is that the list address appear in one of .muttrc's "subscribe" lines. Kinda handy, that. :-) Erik
Re: List reply + group reply combined
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:51:54PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 04.02.16 11:24, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > On some mailing lists you're expected to keep people on CC, for > > example the gcc lists. So I need kind of a combination of a list > > reply and a group reply, i.e. put the list address in "To:" and > > add all other addresses that would be included in a group reply to > > "CC:". > > > > Or put in another way: In a group reply, if there is at least one > > mailing list in the recipient list, put all of them in the "To:" > > header and stick all non-list-recipients into the "CC:" header. > > OK, as is, "To:" becomes the sender of the post to which we're replying, > i.e. the person to whom we actually are replying, and "CC:" is the list > and all the other recipients of the prior post, i.e. the CC recipients. > The effect of that is the same as your proposed aesthetic variant, AIUI. For one this is not just aesthetic, because putting a recipient in "CC:" tells him or her "you might be interested in this" while "To:" means "I'm talking specifically to you". I make this distinction frequently and may often not read a message thoroughly if I'm only in "CC:". And then what you describe does only work this way in some cases. Consider a message that I have sent to a list and cc'ed a colleague: From: ME To: LIST CC: COLLEAGUE Using group reply to my own message generates From: ME To: LIST, COLLEAGUE > On gcc-patches, for example, posts use every variant of the above, and > even have several recipients on "To:", and others on "CC:". But the most > common is the native behaviour of mutt, I observe. I.e. the list is more > often on "CC:". Well, "most common" is not a synonym for "correct". ;-) Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt IBM Germany
Re: List reply + group reply combined
On 04.02.16 12:13, Dominik Vogt wrote: > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:51:54PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > > OK, as is, "To:" becomes the sender of the post to which we're replying, > > i.e. the person to whom we actually are replying, and "CC:" is the list > > and all the other recipients of the prior post, i.e. the CC recipients. > > The effect of that is the same as your proposed aesthetic variant, AIUI. > > For one this is not just aesthetic, because putting a recipient in > "CC:" tells him or her "you might be interested in this" while > "To:" means "I'm talking specifically to you". I make this > distinction frequently and may often not read a message thoroughly > if I'm only in "CC:". That is precisely why it is correct for the prior poster, i.e. the only person to whom we _are_ directly replying, to be alone on "To:", as currently occurs. We are not specifically replying to every list member, so it is correct for them to be on "CC:", in the form of the list address. The group of list members who are listed CC recipients who "might be interested in this", receive individual "courtesy copies" in addition to the list copy, which is often more than they want, as it is.¹ As you have defined it, and I am tempted to concur, it is the proposed variant which would be incorrect, if anything is. ¹ Because the damned "courtesy copy" arrives first, I'm forced to use procmail to divert that to the list mailbox. Then the list copy is dumped to "duplicates", so I'm spared the nuisance of needless repetition wasting my time. Now the reply can be read in the context of the thread - very handy if there is a follow-up with a subject of "FIXED: ...". Still, if desperate, you could: set edit_headers=yes and shuffle recipients about while composing the reply. If that doesn't suit, then ISTR that a post-edit filter could be written and automatically run on exit from the editor, e.g. a few lines of awk. (If not automatically, then it can definitely be run manually once back in the compose menu.) Erik
Re: List reply + group reply combined
On 04.02.16 11:24, Dominik Vogt wrote: > On some mailing lists you're expected to keep people on CC, for > example the gcc lists. So I need kind of a combination of a list > reply and a group reply, i.e. put the list address in "To:" and > add all other addresses that would be included in a group reply to > "CC:". > > Or put in another way: In a group reply, if there is at least one > mailing list in the recipient list, put all of them in the "To:" > header and stick all non-list-recipients into the "CC:" header. OK, as is, "To:" becomes the sender of the post to which we're replying, i.e. the person to whom we actually are replying, and "CC:" is the list and all the other recipients of the prior post, i.e. the CC recipients. The effect of that is the same as your proposed aesthetic variant, AIUI. On gcc-patches, for example, posts use every variant of the above, and even have several recipients on "To:", and others on "CC:". But the most common is the native behaviour of mutt, I observe. I.e. the list is more often on "CC:". Erik
Re: List reply + group reply combined
On 2016-02-04 11:34:49 Ben Boeckel hacked into the keyboard: > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 23:22:53 +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > > The group of list members who are listed CC recipients who "might be > > interested in this", receive individual "courtesy copies" in addition to > > the list copy, which is often more than they want, as it is.¹ > > Mailman has an option to not send you the list copy if you're on the CC > list. Which break "Reply-to-List" because your "Cc:" has not the List-Header anymore... -- Michelle KonzackITSystems GNU/Linux Developer 0033-6-61925193
Re: List reply + group reply combined
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 23:22:53 +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > The group of list members who are listed CC recipients who "might be > interested in this", receive individual "courtesy copies" in addition to > the list copy, which is often more than they want, as it is.¹ Mailman has an option to not send you the list copy if you're on the CC list. --Ben
