On Wed Mar 14 2012 Sam Steingold wrote:
I am pretty sure that every user who sets
bbdb-message-all-addresses to non-nil would want this patch:
I guess we were not talking about BBDB if every user had not
strongly diverging opinions about such things. In that sense, I am
rather hesitant to
* Roland Winkler jvax...@tah.bet [2012-03-15 05:24:27 -0500]:
On Wed Mar 14 2012 Sam Steingold wrote:
I am pretty sure that every user who sets
bbdb-message-all-addresses to non-nil would want this patch:
I guess we were not talking about BBDB if every user had not strongly
diverging
On Wed Mar 14 2012 Sam Steingold wrote:
However, when I hit ; in *Summary*, I am offered to edit the notes for
_both_ bar-users and f...@gmail.com (because in bbdb-message-headers
sender is mapper to both From and Reply-To).
This is ungood.
What do you want instead? Do you want to use
* Roland Winkler jvax...@tah.bet [2012-03-14 11:07:13 -0500]:
On Wed Mar 14 2012 Sam Steingold wrote:
However, when I hit ; in *Summary*, I am offered to edit the notes for
_both_ bar-users and f...@gmail.com (because in bbdb-message-headers
sender is mapper to both From and Reply-To).
This
On Wed Mar 14 2012 Sam Steingold wrote:
Do you want to use different values of bbdb-message-headers depending
on context? You could define a wrapper that rebinds it according to
your taste. (I would guess that there are too many possiblities /
different tastes for a universal yet still
* Roland Winkler jvax...@tah.bet [2012-03-14 14:23:17 -0500]:
On Wed Mar 14 2012 Sam Steingold wrote:
Do you want to use different values of bbdb-message-headers depending
on context? You could define a wrapper that rebinds it according to
your taste. (I would guess that there are too
