Re: Adding text to subject when calling group

On 09.06.21 12:15, steve wrote: > Hello, > > Nobody for this one? > > I found that I could modify the subject with a folder-hook but that's > only half of the solution since it doesn't take care of the group alias > part. > > Any help would be highly appreciat

Re: Adding text to subject when calling group

Hello, Nobody for this one? I found that I could modify the subject with a folder-hook but that's only half of the solution since it doesn't take care of the group alias part. Any help would be highly appreciated. Steve Le 02-06-2021, à 08:54:50 +0200, steve a écrit : Hi, In the alias

Adding text to subject when calling group

Hi, In the alias file, I defined several users and with them defined a group 'groupX'. When creating a new message with 'm' and calling 'groupX', I would like to add a fixed text to the subject line (only when the alias 'groupX' is called'). How could I do that? I failed to find

Re: group and alias

On 01Mar2021 09:45, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: >On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 01:32:47AM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote: >>And where/how do you use the group rather than the alias? > >Groups are used in patterns. See the modifiers starting with '%' in ><http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/#pa

Re: group and alias

On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 01:32:47AM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote: And where/how do you use the group rather than the alias? Groups are used in patterns. See the modifiers starting with '%' in <http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/#patterns>. -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA

Re: group and alias

On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 01:19:10PM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote: On 28Feb2021 19:00, Jon LaBadie wrote: Trying to use the "group" facility. Expected I could do something like: group -group ABC -addr -addr -addr And then email 3 people with $ mutt ABC I am able to

Re: group and alias

On 28Feb2021 19:00, Jon LaBadie wrote: >Trying to use the "group" facility. Expected I could >do something like: > group -group ABC -addr -addr -addr > >And then email 3 people with > > $ mutt ABC > >I am able to accompli

group and alias

Trying to use the "group" facility. Expected I could do something like: group -group ABC -addr -addr -addr And then email 3 people with $ mutt ABC I am able to accomplish this with an alias: alias ABC , , Is this not an application for which "group" was int

Re: Differences and interactions between subscribe, lists, group, alternates and alias.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 06:04:03PM -0600, boB Stepp wrote: > On 21/02/16 12:28AM, Øyvind A. Holm wrote: > > On 2021-02-16 00:17:22, Øyvind A. Holm wrote: > > > On 2021-02-15 16:01:06, boB Stepp wrote: > > > > > On Monday, 15 February at 21:53, boB Stepp wrote: > > > > > > And from reading the

Re: Differences and interactions between subscribe, lists, group, alternates and alias.

On 2021-02-15 18:04:03, boB Stepp wrote: > On 21/02/16 00:28, Øyvind A. Holm wrote: > > On 2021-02-16 00:17:22, Øyvind A. Holm wrote: > > > On 2021-02-15 16:01:06, boB Stepp wrote: > > > > And "alternates" is still a mystery... > > > > > > It is used if you have any alternate or old email

Re: Differences and interactions between subscribe, lists, group, alternates and alias.

On 21/02/16 12:28AM, Øyvind A. Holm wrote: On 2021-02-16 00:17:22, Øyvind A. Holm wrote: On 2021-02-15 16:01:06, boB Stepp wrote: > > On Monday, 15 February at 21:53, boB Stepp wrote: > > > And from reading the Mutt manual I have encountered the > > > alternates option, but now I am not sure

Re: Differences and interactions between subscribe, lists, group, alternates and alias.

On 2021-02-16 00:17:22, Øyvind A. Holm wrote: > On 2021-02-15 16:01:06, boB Stepp wrote: > > > On Monday, 15 February at 21:53, boB Stepp wrote: > > > > And from reading the Mutt manual I have encountered the > > > > alternates option, but now I am not sure what it is useful for > > > > and how

Re: Differences and interactions between subscribe, lists, group, alternates and alias.

On 2021-02-15 16:01:06, boB Stepp wrote: > > On Monday, 15 February at 21:53, boB Stepp wrote: > > > And from reading the Mutt manual I have encountered the alternates > > > option, but now I am not sure what it is useful for and how to > > > most effectively use it. > > And "alternates" is

Re: Differences and interactions between subscribe, lists, group, alternates and alias.

it yet, but what I would like to do is have different groups that I can type a shortcut and have all the email addresses inserted. For instance, I would like to have a group "Kids" which when typed would auto-expand into my kids' email addresses. Also, I would like to be able to ty

Re: Differences and interactions between subscribe, lists, group, alternates and alias.

ration option. If I a just following a list, then > using lists configuration option is probably more appropriate. > > As to the group option I was under the impression that I could give a nice > shortcut name and assign a list of email addresses to it and then use it as an > alias

Differences and interactions between subscribe, lists, group, alternates and alias.

appropriate. As to the group option I was under the impression that I could give a nice shortcut name and assign a list of email addresses to it and then use it as an alias. But that does not appear to be the case. For instance I had forgotten to explicitly subscribe to Mutt-Users, so today added to my

Re: group-reply (ctrl-g) only replies To: but not Cc: ?

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:55:42 -0600 wrote: > I' m not sure if this is supposed to be default behavior, but when I > attempt to group reply to an email, only those addresses previously > listed as To: are included in the response, and not those Cc'ed. Is > this a bug, som

group-reply (ctrl-g) only replies To: but not Cc: ?

I' m not sure if this is supposed to be default behavior, but when I attempt to group reply to an email, only those addresses previously listed as To: are included in the response, and not those Cc'ed. Is this a bug, something I may be suppressing, or something to enable? I have not been able

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:20:57PM +0100, Mihai Lazarescu wrote: > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 17:56:51 -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > > >The majority of the community said nothing at all, which > >suggests (as I suggested) that most people don't actually give > >a $#@! about this, as well

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:56:51PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: The majority of the community said nothing at all, which suggests (as I suggested) that most people don't actually give a $#@! about this, as well they shouldn't. I'm pretty happy with the turnout. I've re-read the discussion and

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On 2018-12-13 17:56, Derek Martin wrote: > The majority of the community said nothing at all, which suggests (as > I suggested) that most people don't actually give a $#@! about this, > as well they shouldn't. I'll note that in response to Kevin's query, > two people (Ariis and Christiansen)

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On 2018-12-13, Derek Martin wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 01:18:04PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > >> Then the thoughts of the majority of the community bear >> consideration, especially when based on reason. > > The majority of the community said nothing at all, which suggests (as > I

Re: [Mutt] Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 17:48:14 -0600, Derek Martin wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:08:16PM +0100, Mihai T. Lazarescu wrote: > >If a reply is sent to a message that has destination fields, it > >is often desirable to send a copy of the reply to all of the > >recipients

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 17:56:51 -0600, Derek Martin wrote: The majority of the community said nothing at all, which suggests (as I suggested) that most people don't actually give a $#@! about this, as well they shouldn't. I'll note that in response to Kevin's query, two people (Ariis

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 01:18:04PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 11.12.18 17:52, Derek Martin wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:37:02PM +, Nuno Silva wrote: > > > > Yes, I did not think I needed to say this explicity, but it also > > > > explains why: Because that usage is the one

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

ntinues to be the mailing list. You used Mutt's list-reply feature, which still most mailers don't have. As for the list being the primary recipient, a demonstration to the contrary: Imagine you're standing in a group of people, and someone says something to the group. If you respond to what that

Re: [Mutt] Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 18:23:11 -0600, Derek Martin wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:51:08AM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 05:29:01PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > > [...]since these are normally secondary recipients of the reply. > > > >It recomments

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 06:41:17PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > If you convert the mailing list concept to a group of "To" recipients > instead, the same logic can apply. A sends an email to B,C,D as a group > conversation, "Where should we have lunch today".

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

ing I said. I responded to your message, but I replied to mutt-users. That's the reason for the function, because the primary recipient was and continues to be the mailing list. If you convert the mailing list concept to a group of "To" recipients instead, the same logic can appl

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On 11.12.18 17:52, Derek Martin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:37:02PM +, Nuno Silva wrote: > > > Yes, I did not think I needed to say this explicity, but it also > > > explains why: Because that usage is the one that corresponds to the > > > stated purpose of those fields. As such it

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:51:08AM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 05:29:01PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > > [...]since these are normally secondary recipients of the reply. > > > >It recomments Mutt's current behavior, for precisely the reasons I > >gave in support of

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:37:02PM +, Nuno Silva wrote: > > Yes, I did not think I needed to say this explicity, but it also > > explains why: Because that usage is the one that corresponds to the > > stated purpose of those fields. As such it is the obvious, and should > > be preferred, way

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

sentially wrong... [Don't worry, I'll get to it...] > Either way, in the RFC it expresses an option, an acceptable alternate > behavior to the (implicit, because it's obvious) behavior Obvious in the sense that it is the only possible alternative to a group reply... Removing the other recipi

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On 2018-12-11, Derek Martin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:39:31PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: >> On 10.12.18 17:29, Derek Martin wrote: >> >When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the >> >authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:" >> >

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 21:08:16 +0100, Mihai Lazarescu wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:29 AM Derek Martin wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:31:28PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > > Thread comment: It's OK to be unaware of the usefulness of RFC features, > > but it does seem

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:29 AM Derek Martin wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:31:28PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > > Thread comment: It's OK to be unaware of the usefulness of RFC features, > > but it does seem odd to pretend that they're not useful just because > > it's only others

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 05:29:01PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but for the sake of clarity about RFC features, here's what RFC 2822 says on the matter (3.6.3, paragraph 6): [...]since these are normally secondary recipients of the reply. It

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:39:31PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 10.12.18 17:29, Derek Martin wrote: > >When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the > >authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:" > >field) or mailboxes specified in the

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On 10.12.18 17:29, Derek Martin wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:31:28PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > > Thread comment: It's OK to be unaware of the usefulness of RFC features, > > but it does seem odd to pretend that they're not useful just because > > it's only others who need them. > >

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:31:28PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > Thread comment: It's OK to be unaware of the usefulness of RFC features, > but it does seem odd to pretend that they're not useful just because > it's only others who need them. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On 05.12.18 00:44, Mihai Lazarescu wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:12:08PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > > > > I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would > > > make a difference. > > > > The ticket

Re: [Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:12:08PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would > make a difference. The ticket number is 98, but I thought mutt-users would be a better place to

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:12:08PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > >I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would make > >a difference. > > The ticket number is 98, but I thought mutt-users would be a better > place

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On 30.11.18 01:34, Francesco Ariis wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would make a > > difference. > > I suspect work related setting. Cc: is indeed "being kept in the loop" > while To: is "addressed

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would make a > difference. I suspect work related setting. Cc: is indeed "being kept in the loop" while To: is "addressed specifically". I have never noticed mutt behaviour,

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote: I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would make a difference. The ticket number is 98, but I thought mutt-users would be a better place to have a discussion. I can't speak for the reporter, but my understanding

Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

On 2018-11-29 13:26, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > Someone opened a ticket asking about Mutt's group reply behavior. > > By default (i.e. ignoring Mail-Followup-To, $reply_self, $reply_to, > etc.), the To recipients are added to the Cc list of the reply. The > ticket reporter thoug

Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

Someone opened a ticket asking about Mutt's group reply behavior. By default (i.e. ignoring Mail-Followup-To, $reply_self, $reply_to, etc.), the To recipients are added to the Cc list of the reply. The ticket reporter thought it made more sense for To recipients to remain in the To list

group-reply Bcc

Hi I have asked this some time ago [1] but I may have not been specific enough. I'll give it another shot. I have write_bcc=yes set and therefore a copy of a sent mail will have the Bcc header set and filled with recipients. I'd like to to that mail and wonder how to make the reply mail get the

Re: what is the command of group-reply

On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 09:13:36PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote: > On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 07:49:49PM +0800, Yubin Ruan wrote: > > > > Can anyone tell me what is the command of group-reply? > > Whenever replying a email with multiple `Cc' and recipents, I usually want &g

Re: what is the command of group-reply

On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 07:49:49PM +0800, Yubin Ruan wrote: > > Can anyone tell me what is the command of group-reply? > Whenever replying a email with multiple `Cc' and recipents, I usually want to > reply to all of them. This can be achieved by "Reply-to-all" in some m

what is the command of group-reply

Hi, Can anyone tell me what is the command of group-reply? Whenever replying a email with multiple `Cc' and recipents, I usually want to reply to all of them. This can be achieved by "Reply-to-all" in some mail clients. In Mutt, that is a single `g' in the pager. But as I have

Re: group reply [SOLVED] now alternates

On 27-09-2016, at 14h 45'42", Jon LaBadie wrote about "Re: group reply [SOLVED] now alternates" > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:20:14PM +0200, Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă wrote: > > > > Another shot in the dark: Is there a chance that the original author > > is one of

Re: group reply [SOLVED] now alternates

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 14:45:42 -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote: > My alternates definition is a regex that matched the author. > > A couple of queries about alternates. > > I simply have: > > alternates ".*@labadie\.us" ".*@jgcomp\.org" ".*@jgcomp\.com" > > I can definitely make it more specific,

Re: group reply [SOLVED] now alternates

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:20:14PM +0200, Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă wrote: > On 26-09-2016, at 17h 20'26", Jon LaBadie wrote about "Re: group reply" > > Did a reply to everyone in the "To:" header but the > > original author in the "From:" header wa

Re: group reply

On 26-09-2016, at 17h 20'26", Jon LaBadie wrote about "Re: group reply" > Did a reply to everyone in the "To:" header but the > original author in the "From:" header was not included. > Another shot in the dark: Is there a chance that the original aut

Re: group reply

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 05:30:47PM -0400, Nathan Stratton Treadway wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 14:38:00 -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:02:24PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote: > > > A shot in the dark..(and eventhough you inspected the headers_ :) > > > > > > Nothing odd set

Re: group reply

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 14:38:00 -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:02:24PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote: > > A shot in the dark..(and eventhough you inspected the headers_ :) > > > > Nothing odd set into the "reply to:" header on the original > > message ? > > None present in

Re: group reply

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:21:11PM +0200, Jostein Berntsen wrote: > On 26.09.16,14:38, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:02:24PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote: > > > A shot in the dark..(and eventhough you inspected the headers_ :) > > > > > > Nothing odd set into the "reply to:" header

Re: group reply

On 26.09.16,14:38, Jon LaBadie wrote: On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:02:24PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote: A shot in the dark..(and eventhough you inspected the headers_ :) Nothing odd set into the "reply to:" header on the original message ? None present in original message. What happens if you do

Re: group reply

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:02:24PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote: > A shot in the dark..(and eventhough you inspected the headers_ :) > > Nothing odd set into the "reply to:" header on the original > message ? None present in original message. jl > > On Sun,Sep 25 07:35:PM, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > I

Re: group reply

A shot in the dark..(and eventhough you inspected the headers_ :) Nothing odd set into the "reply to:" header on the original message ? On Sun,Sep 25 07:35:PM, Jon LaBadie wrote: > I don't recall this happening before. I replied to > a message using 'g' and the message author was not > included

group reply

I don't recall this happening before. I replied to a message using 'g' and the message author was not included in the list of recipients of my reply. I did not notice the omission until the author mentioned she did not get my reply. But I went back to the original message and typed 'g' and she

Re: Send mail to an 'address group'

El Tuesday, 13 de September del 2016 a les 23:30, Erik Christiansen va escriure: On 13.09.16 12:08, mimosinnet wrote: When the members of the group CoordsM change, I have to change the alias. Is there a way I can use the definition of the "Address Groups" (http://www.mutt.org/

Re: Send mail to an 'address group'

On 13.09.16 12:08, mimosinnet wrote: > When the members of the group CoordsM change, I have to change the > alias. > > Is there a way I can use the definition of the "Address Groups" > (http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/#addrgroup) to be able to define an > alias (ht

Send mail to an 'address group'

I have an alias file with: alias -group CoordsM alias1 Name Surname alias -group CoordsM alias2 Name Surname alias -group CoordsM alias3 Name Surname alias -group CoordsM alias4 Name Surname alias -group CoordsM alias5 Name Surname To send an email to the address group CoordsM, I have

Re: group mailings with blind cc - RTM

On 16.04.16 14:59, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > Next step was to set up a send-hook on the tfccc email addr. > > This would setup "my_hdr Bcc:" to be the list of recipients, > > or later perhaps a mutt group alias for the list. I've done > > similar settings b

Re: group mailings with blind cc - RTM

"my_hdr Bcc:" to be the list of recipients, > or later perhaps a mutt group alias for the list. I've done > similar settings before, but not for the Bcc: header. > > This step doesn't work. Either nothing gets added or the > list gets added to the To: header. > > I'

Re: group mailings with blind cc

don’t set up a mailing list? That’s their aim. > > Not enough traffic. I wouldn't expect more than > > 1 or 2 messages a year. Like meet times change > > in the summer, revert in fall. > How large is the list. If it is not too large, just make a group alias > in your alias fil

Re: group mailings with blind cc

j...@jgcomp.com > 11226 South Shore Rd. (703) 787-0688 (H) > Reston, VA 20190 (703) 935-6720 (C) How large is the list. If it is not too large, just make a group alias in your alias file and send the message putting that alias in the Bcc line. I d

Re: group mailings with blind cc

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 09:48:26PM +0200, Alarig Le Lay wrote: > On Fri Apr 15 14:40:27 2016, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > I'm trying to set up a way to send periodic notices > > to a list of people with the restriction that the > > recipients email addresses not be generally visible, > > thus they

Re: group mailings with blind cc

to create an email alias "tf...@jgcomp.com" > and a mutt alias "tfc" to be "Tuesday Fun Club - Community > Center" <tf...@jgcomp.com>. This works fine. > > Next step was to set up a send-hook on the tfccc email addr. > This would setup "my_hdr

group mailings with blind cc

quot; to be "Tuesday Fun Club - Community Center" <tf...@jgcomp.com>. This works fine. Next step was to set up a send-hook on the tfccc email addr. This would setup "my_hdr Bcc:" to be the list of recipients, or later perhaps a mutt group alias for the list. I've don

Re: List reply + group reply combined

(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 we

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 > > > interes

List reply + group reply combined

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:". O

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 rep

Re: List reply + group reply combined

on 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 w

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

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&quo

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 i

Handling of ";" in To: with group nameing

Hi, RFC2822 defines a possibility to put group names in To/Cc etc ... Format is described in RFC2828 Section 3.4 Addesss Specification " When it is desirable to treat several mailboxes as a single unit (i.e., in a distribution list), the group construct can be used. The group cons

Re: Change to group reply from compose map?

e at the > completion of your composition. > > -Stephen > > On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Xu Wang wrote: > >> I often press 'r', write my message, and then realize on compose map >> that I should have done 'g' for group reply. Is there a way to switch >> on compose map (other than doing manually editing)? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Xu

Re: Change to group reply from compose map?

, other than passing off the file at the completion of your composition. -Stephen On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Xu Wang wrote: > I often press 'r', write my message, and then realize on compose map > that I should have done 'g' for group reply. Is there a way to switch > on compose map (other t

Change to group reply from compose map?

I often press 'r', write my message, and then realize on compose map that I should have done 'g' for group reply. Is there a way to switch on compose map (other than doing manually editing)? Kind regards, Xu

Re: Default send subject for group

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 02:49:27PM +0200, Teon Banek wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Is it possible to have a default subject prefix when sending a mail to a > group? For example, I have a group of people and I'd like to > automatically fill in the subject with '[Group]' when sendin

Default send subject for group

Hello everyone, Is it possible to have a default subject prefix when sending a mail to a group? For example, I have a group of people and I'd like to automatically fill in the subject with '[Group]' when sending mail to all members of the group. Basically, what I want is subject prefix

Re: Default send subject for group

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 02:59:38PM +0200, Francesco Ariis wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 02:49:27PM +0200, Teon Banek wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > Is it possible to have a default subject prefix when sending a mail to a > > group? For example, I have a g

how to limit/filter on a fixed set of adresses (group)

Dear mutt users, I would wish to limit/search etc. emails which are addressed to a group of 6 email addresses. But %C matches if one of the addresses in the emails header matches one of the groups email addresses. This does not check if all addresses match nor if there are addresses which

Re: how to limit/filter on a fixed set of adresses (group)

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 04:51:23PM +0200, Gregor Zattler wrote: > I would wish to limit/search etc. emails which are addressed to a > group of 6 email addresses. But %C matches if one of the > addresses in the emails header matches one of the groups email > addresses. This does not

Re: format=flowed (was: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply)

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 12:31:58AM -0400, Grady Martin wrote: > On 2015年09月07日 13時39分, Cameron Simpson wrote: > >Hmm. I was going to complain about your reflow_* > >settings (even though the defaults are to reflow > >at 78 columns), but I see that they are not > >properly obeyed for me either.

Re: format=flowed (was: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply)

* Cameron Simpson [09-06-15 23:51]: > On 06Sep2015 22:54, Patrick Shanahan wrote: [...] > >Most certainly, longer lines than 80 chars. > > Hmm. I was going to complain about your reflow_* settings (even though the > defaults are to reflow at 78 columns), but

Re: format=flowed (was: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply)

On 07Sep2015 00:31, Grady Martin wrote: On 2015年09月07日 13時39分, Cameron Simpson wrote: Hmm. I was going to complain about your reflow_* settings (even though the defaults are to reflow at 78 columns), but I see that they are not properly obeyed for me either. Grady's

Re: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply

On 07Sep2015 00:41, Grady Martin wrote: On 2015年09月06日 21時38分, Patrick Shanahan wrote: line wrapping would really be nice. Read the fine manual about "lists" and "subscribe" in muttrc Here is what the manual says: Mutt has a few nice features for handling mailing

If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply

Hello, fellow puppies. The mutt mailing list is magical. Executing a regular results in a prompt that confirms the recipient (list or sender). Not all mailing lists work so well. These require . However, because fails for mail not originating from a list, it would be nice if it could

Re: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply

On 2015年09月06日 21時38分, Patrick Shanahan wrote: line wrapping would really be nice. Read the fine manual about "lists" and "subscribe" in muttrc Here is what the manual says: Mutt has a few nice features for handling mailing lists. In order to take advantage of them, you must specify which

Re: format=flowed (was: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply)

* Cameron Simpson [09-06-15 22:41]: > On 06Sep2015 21:38, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > >* Grady Martin [09-06-15 21:32]: > >>Hello, fellow puppies. The mutt mailing list is magical. Executing a > >>regular results in a prompt that

Re: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply

* Grady Martin [09-06-15 21:32]: > Hello, fellow puppies. The mutt mailing list is magical. Executing a > regular results in a prompt that confirms the recipient (list or > sender). > > Not all mailing lists work so well. These require . > However, because fails

Re: format=flowed (was: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply)

On 2015-09-07 13:39 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: > Hmm. I was going to complain about your reflow_* settings (even > though the defaults are to reflow at 78 columns), but I see that they > are not properly obeyed for me either. Grady's message wraps at my > terminal width, even though I have

Re: format=flowed (was: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply)

On 2015年09月07日 13時39分, Cameron Simpson wrote: Hmm. I was going to complain about your reflow_* settings (even though the defaults are to reflow at 78 columns), but I see that they are not properly obeyed for me either. Grady's message wraps at my terminal width, even though I have just set

  1   2   3   >