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 b
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 be
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 the
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
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) said
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 sug
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 o
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
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 t
at
you're messaging about.
Mutt evolved functionality to deal with this, and a small handful of
other mailers copied it. A clever hack on top of a clever hack.
Even now, most major mailers don't give you that option--you'd need to
use group reply, which would still put the sender to
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 Mutt'
B may respond to A's
> email, but her desire is to reply equally to all the other primary (to)
> recipients. Her group-reply ought to put A,C,D in the To field. This
> continues the indication that it's a group conversation whose primary
> recipients still include C and D.
an apply. A sends an email to B,C,D as a group
conversation, "Where should we have lunch today". B may respond to A's
email, but her desire is to reply equally to all the other primary (to)
recipients. Her group-reply ought to put A,C,D in the To field. This
continues the in
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 is
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 it
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
MAY"
is essentially 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
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:"
>> >
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 o
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 who
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 recomm
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 "Rep
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.
>
>
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 fo
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 n
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 hav
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
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 sp
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, but
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
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
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 li
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
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
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 s
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
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 on
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,
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:" head
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 origina
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 i
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 origin
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 on
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 "
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 don
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
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 i
me) 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
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 "co
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, wh
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 t
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 th
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 grou
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 w
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
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
ith
no direct tie to mutt, 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
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
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. Grad
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 message
wraps at my terminal
* Grady Martin [09-07-15 21:38]:
> On 2015年09月07日 07時59分, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> >When so doubt or question exists, there is always that ancient document,
> >man pages.
> >
> >re: wrap
> > set wrap=78
> > set smart_wrap
> > set reflow_wrap
> >
> >Nothing weird except habit :)
>
> Very true. I
On 2015年09月07日 07時59分, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
When so doubt or question exists, there is always that ancient document,
man pages.
re: wrap
set wrap=78
set smart_wrap
set reflow_wrap
Nothing weird except habit :)
Very true. I had neglected to set wrap. With these settings, though, how
w
* 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 I see that they are not properly
> o
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 lists. In order to take
ad
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 ad
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 reflow
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 just
On 06Sep2015 22:54, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* 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 confirms the recipient (l
* 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 confirms the recipient (list or
> >>sender).
> [...]
> >
> >line
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 confirms the recipient (list or
sender).
[...]
line wrapping would really be nice.
His message was format=f
* 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 for mail not originating fro
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 fall
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 02:47:45PM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 13May2010 09:53, Udo Hortian wrote:
> | I tend to use "reply" accidentally instead of "group reply" if I reply to
> | messages sent to a group of persons. Is there a way to be asked by mutt
> |
On 13May2010 09:53, Udo Hortian wrote:
| I tend to use "reply" accidentally instead of "group reply" if I reply to
| messages sent to a group of persons. Is there a way to be asked by mutt
| if one wants to use "group reply" instead of "reply" in case th
Dear mutt users,
I tend to use "reply" accidentally instead of "group reply" if I reply to
messages sent to a group of persons. Is there a way to be asked by mutt
if one wants to use "group reply" instead of "reply" in case that there
is more than one recipient in the mail one is answering?
Udo
message.
Awesome. I just missed this functionality and now it's so simple and
does exactly what I want (include me on group reply but not on normal
replies). I just set this to 'yes' in my .muttrc – thank you very much. :-)
Greets
Alex
--
»With the first link, the chain is forged. Th
Hah! I really did RTFM...must have just missed this one. ;)
Many thanks Kyle...you're a great help on this alias!
-j
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Tuesday, August 18 at 08:55 AM, quoth James:
>>All,
>>
>>I'm wonder
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Tuesday, August 18 at 08:55 AM, quoth James:
>All,
>
>I'm wondering if there's some way to tell mutt to automatically remove
>self from group replies. I find this to be a pain sometimes when on
>long email threads.
To quote the muttrc man page:
All,
I'm wondering if there's some way to tell mutt to automatically remove
self from group replies. I find this to be a pain sometimes when on
long email threads.
Thoughts?
-j
* David Rock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-12 19:32]:
> * Johan Almqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-12 21:10]:
> > * David Rock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020912 21:02]:
> > > When I group reply to a message, is there any way to
> > > remove my own address
Alas! David Rock spake thus:
> 6.3.96. metoo
>
> Type: boolean
> Default: no
>
> If unset, Mutt will remove your address from the list of recipients
Mutt can only know who "you" are by $alternates.
> Neither of these really explains that metoo needs al
* Johan Almqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-12 21:10]:
> * David Rock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020912 21:02]:
> > When I group reply to a message, is there any way to remove my own
> > address from the recipient list?
>
> Mutt should do this for you if you have s
Alas! David Rock spake thus:
> I know this has come up before, but I can't find it anywhere:
>
> When I group reply to a message, is there any way to remove my own
> address from the recipient list?
Grep the manual for "metoo" or similar.
--
Rob 'Feztaa
* David Rock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020912 21:02]:
> When I group reply to a message, is there any way to remove my own
> address from the recipient list?
Mutt should do this for you if you have set alternates
correctly...
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
David Rock wrote:
> I know this has come up before, but I can't find it anywhere:
>
> When I group reply to a message, is there any way to remove my own
> address from the recipient list?
unset metoo should do what you want.
if that doesn't work, perhaps you don&
I know this has come up before, but I can't find it anywhere:
When I group reply to a message, is there any way to remove my own
address from the recipient list?
--
David Rock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
msg30933/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Eduardo --
...and then Eduardo Gargiulo said...
%
% David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
% >
% > ...and then Eduardo Gargiulo said...
% > %
% > ...
% > % set alternates="egargiulo@ingdesi.(net|com)?"
% > % set alternates="ejg(-.*)?@ar.homelinux.org"
...
% >
% > set alternates="egargiulo@ing
David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eduardo --
>
> ...and then Eduardo Gargiulo said...
> %
> ...
> % set alternates="egargiulo@ingdesi.(net|com)?"
> % set alternates="ejg(-.*)?@ar.homelinux.org"
>
> Unlike mailboxes or lists, alternates is a basic regexp, so your second
> setting will step
Eduardo --
...and then Eduardo Gargiulo said...
%
...
% set alternates="egargiulo@ingdesi.(net|com)?"
% set alternates="ejg(-.*)?@ar.homelinux.org"
Unlike mailboxes or lists, alternates is a basic regexp, so your second
setting will step on your first and no egargiulo addresses will be
recogniz
Christoph Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2002-04-25 Eduardo Gargiulo wrote:
> > How should i configure my muttrc to make mutt don't include my address
> > in group replies messages? The variable metoo is unset, but my address is
> > still there (CC).
>
> Did you set alternates correctly,
On 2002-04-25 Eduardo Gargiulo wrote:
> How should i configure my muttrc to make mutt don't include my address
> in group replies messages? The variable metoo is unset, but my address is
> still there (CC).
Did you set alternates correctly, so that mutt knows, who you are?
Regards,
Christoph
Hi all.
How should i configure my muttrc to make mutt don't include my address
in group replies messages? The variable metoo is unset, but my address is
still there (CC).
TIA
--
Eduardo Gargiulo
^ejg(-.*)?@ar\.homelinux\.org$
msg27635/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 2002.03.01, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Andrew P. Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I do a group-reply, how can I automatically filter out *my* email
> address?
>
> I'm already writing all sent messages to folders with save_name and I
When I do a group-reply, how can I automatically filter out *my* email
address?
I'm already writing all sent messages to folders with save_name and I'm
getting a second useless mail unless I manually remove my name from the
To or CC list.
--
Andrew Bell
> i am pretty sure that metoo works for group reply as well. my guess is
> that you don't have 'alternates' set correctly or set at all... what is
> your 'alternates' line?
that was it! thanks!
> w
david
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 12:11:52PM, David Petrou wrote:
[clip]
set followup_to=no
> david
---end quoted text---
--
Para La Queja Mexica
Este Sueño De America
Celebramos La Aluna
De Siempre, Ahorita
-- Bertrand Cantat, Tostaky (Le Continent)
Benjamin Michotte<[EMAIL PROTECTED
rs to only apply to regular `r'eplies, and it
> is also off by default.
i am pretty sure that metoo works for group reply as well. my guess is
that you don't have 'alternates' set correctly or set at all... what is
your 'alternates' line?
i have this in my .mu
msg.pgp
Let's say person A mails me and cc:'s person B. Now, I want to reply
to all of them, so I do a `g'roup-reply. It seems that mutt's default
behavior is to compose a message to person A and cc:'d to me and
person B. What's the rationale for this?
I would prefer that 'g' only send the message to
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 03:40:19PM -0500, Jack wrote:
> Question as the subject. I dont need to get a CC when Group-Reply. I
> know, I can remove it manually, but is there any hook could be used
> here?
unset metoo
If you have different addresses, make sure that you set up $a
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
