Re: How to prevent 'List Reply' from sending to more than one address

On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 03:22:16PM +, Chris Green wrote: > I am on a mailing list which has (presumably for historical reasons) > two addresses. Sometimes messages arrive with *both* of the addresses > in a format which mutt sees as the list address. Thus, when I use > 

How to prevent 'List Reply' from sending to more than one address

I am on a mailing list which has (presumably for historical reasons) two addresses. Sometimes messages arrive with *both* of the addresses in a format which mutt sees as the list address. Thus, when I use 'List Reply' the outgoing E-Mail preserves the duplication and my E-Mail t

Re: [SPAM?] Re: list-reply without Cc?

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 04:42:10PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:08:30PM +0200, Gabriel Philippe wrote: >> I don't know if this is relevant: the list is not a real list with >> appropriate headers, and most of the people use poorly-designed MUA >> (no Mail-Followup-To, etc

[SPAM?] Re: list-reply without Cc?

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:08:30PM +0200, Gabriel Philippe wrote: > I don't know if this is relevant: the list is not a real list with > appropriate headers, and most of the people use poorly-designed MUA > (no Mail-Followup-To, etc.). To be fair, Mail-Followup-To was never turned into a standard.

Re: list-reply without Cc?

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:08:30PM +0200, Gabriel Philippe wrote: > Thanks Ben, but I realize my question was not accurate. I am > disappointed by having recipients in Cc when I use list-reply on my > own messages (match alternates). > > Ex: > - I am subscribed to a list (wit

Re: list-reply without Cc?

Thanks Ben, but I realize my question was not accurate. I am disappointed by having recipients in Cc when I use list-reply on my own messages (match alternates). Ex: - I am subscribed to a list (with mutt's subscribe command), - I have sent a message to A (not in the list), Cc the list and B

Re: list-reply without Cc?

people in > Cc). Yep: Llist-replyreply to specified mailing list But it only works on those lists with a correctly configure List-reply header (e.g. Mailman lists). Without that you might encounter some which set the reply-to header instead, but it varies. Regards, Ben signatu

list-reply without Cc?

Hello, Is there a way to reply to a subscribed list without anybody in copy? I often receive messages from someone not subscribed, then want to answer to the list only (and sometimes forget to remove the people in Cc). -- Gabriel

list-reply enabled for a non-mailing list

Hello to all, I have some messages that are not from a mailing list (I am sure that mutt also knows it is not list because there is no "L" flag). But is still enabled. How is this possible? Should there be any case where there is no L flag but is enabled? How do I disable it so I don't make mis

Re: List reply + group reply combined

d 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 i

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 "co

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, wh

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 t

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 th

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 grou

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 w

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:". Or

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. Grad

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 message wraps at my terminal

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

* 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

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

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

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 I see that they are not properly > o

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 lists. In order to take ad

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 ad

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 reflow

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 just

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

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

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 confirms the recipient (list or > >>sender). > [...] > > > >line

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

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

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 for mail not originating fro

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 fall

Re: List headers and List Reply [Was: Sent attached doc from Libreoffice]

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 03:15:57PM +0200, Matthias Apitz wrote: > El domingo, 31 de mayo de 2015 14:45:36 (CEST), Matthias Apitz escribió: > > > > >I do have sent any mail from an iPhone. > > > I dont have sent, was what I wanted write :-) > > > -- > Sent from my Ubuntu phone > http://www.unixa

Re: List headers and List Reply [Was: Sent attached doc from Libreoffice]

El domingo, 31 de mayo de 2015 14:45:36 (CEST), Matthias Apitz escribió: I do have sent any mail from an iPhone. I dont have sent, was what I wanted write :-) -- Sent from my Ubuntu phone http://www.unixarea.de/

Re: List headers and List Reply [Was: Sent attached doc from Libreoffice]

El domingo, 31 de mayo de 2015 13:40:06 (CEST), Chris Bannister escribió: ... Alas, it seems that if you append 'Sent from my iPhone' then you are excused. :( I do have sent any mail from an iPhone. matthias -- Sent from my Ubuntu phone http://www.unixarea.de/

Re: List headers and List Reply [Was: Sent attached doc from Libreoffice]

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:41:49AM +0200, John Niendorf wrote: > > >>Derek> Come on Patrick, you are not new here... You know full well that > >>Derek> most mailer software does not have any list-reply function; mutt > >>Derek> is a rare exception, and

Re: List headers and List Reply [Was: Sent attached doc from Libreoffice]

Derek> Come on Patrick, you are not new here... You know full well that Derek> most mailer software does not have any list-reply function; mutt Derek> is a rare exception, and despite this being a mutt-related list, Derek> not the only mailer people use here. If by now you still

Re: List headers and List Reply [Was: Sent attached doc from Libreoffice]

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 02:28:29PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > On 2015-05-28 14:38 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > Derek> Come on Patrick, you are not new here... You know full well that > Derek> most mailer software does not have any list-reply function; mutt > Derek>

Re: List headers and List Reply [Was: Sent attached doc from Libreoffice]

On 2015-05-28 17:46 -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote: Ian> Note also that this list is slightly substandard in that there is Ian> no List-ID header. There may be software out there that uses that Ian> header to determine if a message is a list message in the first Ian> place. Patrick> List-Post:

Re: List headers and List Reply [Was: Sent attached doc from Libreoffice]

* Ian Zimmerman [05-28-15 17:30]: [...] > Note also that this list is slightly substandard in that there is no > List-ID header. There may be software out there that uses that header > to determine if a message is a list message in the first place. List-Post:

List headers and List Reply [Was: Sent attached doc from Libreoffice]

On 2015-05-28 14:38 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: Derek> Come on Patrick, you are not new here... You know full well that Derek> most mailer software does not have any list-reply function; mutt Derek> is a rare exception, and despite this being a mutt-related list, Derek> not the only m

Re: List-Reply vs. Reply

nged? > > > > I have checked my "subscribed" and "list" entries and they haven't > > changed in over a year, long before I noticed my problem. > > finally having some time on my hands, I have identified the ~/.muttrc > lines causing my concerns:

Re: List-Reply vs. Reply

nged > in over a year, long before I noticed my problem. finally having some time on my hands, I have identified the ~/.muttrc lines causing my concerns: That "r" for "reply" and "L" for "list-reply" both reply to the list rather than "r" to th

Re: List-Reply vs. Reply

* Michelle Konzack [01-14-12 19:23]: > Am 2012-01-14 14:34:55, hacktest Du folgendes herunter: > > Sometime in the recent past, maybe several months, I find that when trying > > to "Reply" to the poster in list mail rather than to the list, mutt replys > > to the list. "R" and "L" seem to functio

Re: List-Reply vs. Reply

Hello Patrick Shanahan, Am 2012-01-14 14:34:55, hacktest Du folgendes herunter: > Sometime in the recent past, maybe several months, I find that when trying > to "Reply" to the poster in list mail rather than to the list, mutt replys > to the list. "R" and "L" seem to function the same for lists

Re: List-Reply vs. Reply

up and delete the cc: address. > > What has changed recently that would cause this or conversly what might I > have wrongly changed? Well, I can't tell you what's changed (haven't been paying attention), but I can show you the settings I have: bind pager R group-reply and (

List-Reply vs. Reply

I have used mutt for many years and have a quite convoluted ~/.muttrc due to many changes and update/upgrades. Presently using mutt-1.5.21 on my openSUSE 11.2 x86_64 server via ssh. Sometime in the recent past, maybe several months, I find that when trying to "Reply" to the poster in list mail ra

Re: List reply is sending to two addresses - how to fix it?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wednesday, May 13 at 04:42 PM, quoth Chris G: > Well it looks OK to me and *shouldn't* match both addresses. The RE > I'm using is:- > > ix...@ixion.org.uk Hmmm. Well, that's a slightly loose RE (the periods aren't escaped), but you're rig

Re: List reply is sending to two addresses - how to fix it?

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:05:46AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > On Wednesday, May 13 at 03:44 PM, quoth Chris G: > >So how can I make mutt only reply to one address, it's getting a bit > >of a pain seeing two identical messages every time I send! > > According to the manual: > > > >

Re: List reply is sending to two addresses - how to fix it?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wednesday, May 13 at 03:44 PM, quoth Chris G: >So how can I make mutt only reply to one address, it's getting a bit >of a pain seeing two identical messages every time I send! According to the manual: Reply to the current or tagg

List reply is sending to two addresses - how to fix it?

I am a member of lots of mailing lists, most work fine with the L[ist] reply command (having added them in the right way to my muttrc of course). However one list has recently started getting *two* addresses in the To: field when I hit L[ist] reply. When I do a L[ist] reply the To: comes up as:-

Re: Mailing list reply

en no other mailing list >> addresses have been found? > > That's the kind of thing I was thinking of, but it sounds a bit dicey in > practice. If you're doing a list-reply to a message where there's a > List-Post header, could you accidentally drop an intended

Re: Mailing list reply

he List-Post header when no other mailing list addresses have been found? That's the kind of thing I was thinking of, but it sounds a bit dicey in practice. If you're doing a list-reply to a message where there's a List-Post header, could you accidentally drop an intended recipient?

Re: Mailing list reply

* imap/message.c, mutt.h, parse.c, send.c, url.c: Use List-Post > headers when doing list-reply. Ah, I thought that might be happening. > And indeed, there's a List-Post header present that specifies > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I've changed my .muttrc as you s

Re: Mailing list reply

d a bit more about what's going on. ChangeLog: 2004-07-20 08:17:21 Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (roessler) * imap/message.c, mutt.h, parse.c, send.c, url.c: Use List-Post headers when doing list-reply. And indeed, there's a List-Post header present that

Re: Mailing list reply

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, October 5 at 10:03 AM, quoth Breen Mullins: > Where does mutt get the address for a mailing list reply? > > I've just been chided for replying twice to a mailing list, where > I used the list-reply function. Heh. That ma

Mailing list reply

Where does mutt get the address for a mailing list reply? I've just been chided for replying twice to a mailing list, where I used the list-reply function. Replies went to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' and to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' - and I can't see where the mail. part come

Re: list reply to mailing list (without Reply-To munging)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, August 14 at 10:12 PM, quoth Hein Zelle: > for those of us with retarded finger-memory that can't seem to get > used to using "L" for list-reply, is it possible to make this an > automatic action? Of cou

Re: list reply to mailing list (without Reply-To munging)

'bind index,pager r reply' folder-hook .lists 'bind index,pager r list-reply' You might also be interested in seeing ignore_list_reply_to for the opposite behavior. That is, forcing you to hit L (list-reply) even if the message you're replying to has suffered fro

Re: list reply to mailing list (without Reply-To munging)

On Tue 14.Aug.07 17:19, Angel Olivera wrote: On Tue 14.Aug.07 22:12, Hein Zelle wrote: Is it possible to make 'r' behave like 'L' for subscribed lists that don't set the Reply-To header to the list address, or perhaps to make mutt ask if I want to reply to the list? Sure, just use macros. I

Re: list reply to mailing list (without Reply-To munging)

Hello, following up on this topic after the linux audio users list changed it's reply-to-munging policy: for those of us with retarded finger-memory that can't seem to get used to using "L" for list-reply, is it possible to make this an automatic action? I've seen peo

gbnet.net was Re: List-Reply

> % Don't tell me the list has more than one address... do I need to have > % multiple subscribe lines for it? Ugh. > > While it only has one correct address, sometimes the gbnet address leaks > through. You probably don't want to subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED], > though, because you'd only be pro

Re: List-Reply

Dan -- ...and then Dan Lowe said... % ... % Don't tell me the list has more than one address... do I need to have % multiple subscribe lines for it? Ugh. While it only has one correct address, sometimes the gbnet address leaks through. You probably don't want to subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED], t

Re: List-Reply

Akkana -- ...and then Akkana said... % ... % Mike Schiraldi writes: ... % > the request is for a command which will initiate a reply to "A list" but not % > Alice. % % Exactly! ... % % So I gather that mutt currently has no way of doing this. If I add Yup. % one, is there any chance it mig

Re: List-Reply

Hi, all -- ...and then s. keeling said... % % - Kibo probably already has the fix implemented. There he is! I knew it would come to this soon :-) It's fun, though! :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up

List filtering [Was: Re: List-Reply]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 02:16:47PM -0400, Mike Schiraldi wrote: > > (the mail would end up in my inbox instead of the list folder). > > That should not happen. What does, say, your mutt-users procmail recipe look > like? > > Mine's: > > :0 H > * ^TO.*@mutt.org > mutt/ > As I'm mostly only list

Re: List-Reply

Shawn McMahon writes: > IMHO, if you hit "list-reply" and Mutt doesn't recognize a list, it > should assume you know what you're talking about, and pop up the "To:" > address as a "yes/no" default. Then if you say no, it should cycle >

Re: List-Reply

in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote s. keeling thusly... > > - _Something_ doesn't show you new mail 'til a few days after it > arrives ('cause you have to wait for possible duplicates to > arrive). Inconvenient, but for those who can't stand seeing > duplicates (or the wrong dupl

Re: List-Reply

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 05:20:45PM -0600, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote: > Alas! Mike Schiraldi spake thus: > > I'm > > not sure what kind of procmail voodoo you would need to grab this > > information from Delivered-To and fulfill the user's request, but it would > > be weird and scary. > > You're so

Re: List-Reply

Alas! Mike Schiraldi spake thus: > I'm > not sure what kind of procmail voodoo you would need to grab this > information from Delivered-To and fulfill the user's request, but it would > be weird and scary. You're so simple-minded. All you have to do is set up a temporal anomaly in which procmail

Re: List-Reply

--R+My9LyyhiUvIEro Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alas! Mike Schiraldi spake thus: > That should not happen. What does, say, your mutt-users procmail recipe l= ook > like? >=20 > Mine's: >=20 > :0 H > * ^TO.*@mut

Re: List-Reply

--ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alas! Dan Lowe spake thus: > Once you're on enough lists, sorting them into proper contains (folders) > becomes important. I, like many, use Procmail for that.

Re: List-Reply [OT]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 02:16:47PM -0400, Mike Schiraldi wrote: > > (the mail would end up in my inbox instead of the list folder). > > That should not happen. What does, say, your mutt-users procmail recipe look > like? > > Mine's: > > :0 H > * ^TO.*@mutt.org > mutt/ Isn't that supposed to be

Re: List-Reply

> (the mail would end up in my inbox instead of the list folder). That should not happen. What does, say, your mutt-users procmail recipe look like? Mine's: :0 H * ^TO.*@mutt.org mutt/ (plus a few others, for guug.de and gbnet.net messages too) If you were to send a message to both me and mut

Re: List-Reply

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:17:53PM -0400, Dan Lowe wrote: > Previously, s. keeling wrote: > > > > I think that last bit is the important part here. Why does it matter? > > Who cares how it got to you. What's important is what you do with it > > now. Are you goingg to reply to the poster who cc:

Re: List-Reply

> > How does this delete the personal copy, but not the list copy? > > Both messages will have the same Message-ID field in the header. Correct answer, but to the question "how does it recognise duplicates". I should have been more specific - what I meant was: how does it delete the personal co

Re: List-Reply

Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote: > Michael Elkins wrote: > > Volker Kuhlmann wrote: > > > How does this delete the personal copy, but not the list copy? > > Both messages will have the same Message-ID field in the header. > Actually, I think Volker was asking "Is it possible to make this > delete the

Re: List-Reply

--gKMricLos+KVdGMg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alas! Michael Elkins spake thus: > Volker Kuhlmann wrote: > > How does this delete the personal copy, but not the list copy? >=20 > Both messages will have the sa

Re: List-Reply

Volker Kuhlmann wrote: > How does this delete the personal copy, but not the list copy? Both messages will have the same Message-ID field in the header.

Re: List-Reply

> if the recipient is annoyed at getting two copies of the message, they > should just use the one-line procmail/formmail solution to remove duplicate > messages. How does this delete the personal copy, but not the list copy? Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann is possibly list0570 with

Re: List-Reply

* Shawn McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Apr 16. 2002 15:12]: > Alternately, just do the "To:", and ignore the "Cc:", because people > shouldn't be Cc:ing lists. But that may just be me. But they do. A LOT. -- Mads Martin Jørgensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to

Re: List-Reply

> > Is there a way to tell mutt to just reply to the address in the To > > line (or, perhaps, in the To or Cc line) and not to the sender? > > how would mutt pick which? it's not psychic. If a message said: From: Alice To: A list the request is for a command which will initiate a reply to "A

Re: List-Reply

begin Will Yardley quotation: > > how is mutt supposed to know which addresses are mailing lists and which > aren't? IMHO, if you hit "list-reply" and Mutt doesn't recognize a list, it should assume you know what you're talking about, and pop up the "To

Re: List-Reply

lers can do, is reply > to lists without my having to update my .muttrc to tell it about every > mailing list I might ever subscribe to. pine doesn't have this function. even in more recent versions, which have support for rfc 2369 headers, you can't 'list-reply' or 'lis

List-Reply

der? 99% of the time, that's what I want a list reply to do, and mutt's so configurable that I figure there must be a way. I'd love to take all those "lists" lines out of my .muttrc and have mutt "just work" for all mailing lists. (I guessed "lists *"

Re: list-reply and Mail-Followup-To

* Simon White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-14 13:08]: > Can I set up a keymapping to Reply to the > mailing list, rather than hitting "g" and > manually pruning the headers where necessary? > *checks manual* > Ahh yes there is. L (list-reply). > Or whatev

Re: List-Reply problems

> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 17:31:25 +0100 > From: Nick Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: List-Reply problems > > Hi > I'm having trouble replying to this list. > If I enter ,L for a 'list-reply' I get the @gbnet ad

List-Reply problems

Hi I'm having trouble replying to this list. If I enter ,L for a 'list-reply' I get the @gbnet address come up as the To field. I now have 'subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]' in my .muttrc but cannot seem to make it work. What might be causing this? Much thanks Nick

list-reply

Greetings All!! Here is my next idea :-) It conciders "list-reply" behavior. When replying to a mailing list I would like mutt to combine author's (of the message i am replying to) real name and an address of mailing list. For example... Joe wrote a letter to <[EMAIL P

Re: combined reply & list-reply

Marianne Albin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 11 Jul 2000: > If you read the README.UPGRADE file, you will find that the "subscribe" > option should now be denoted as "lists" instead. Even so, I've never gotten "list-reply" to do a regular re

Re: combined reply & list-reply

Marianne Albin proclaimed on mutt-users that: >If you read the README.UPGRADE file, you will find that the "subscribe" >option should now be denoted as "lists" instead. You've got it devant-derriere ;) Lists was the old one - you'll have to use "subscribe" now ... > 2. Mailing list behaviour

Re: combined reply & list-reply

If you read the README.UPGRADE file, you will find that the "subscribe" option should now be denoted as "lists" instead. - Original Message - From: "Jeremy M. Dolan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, July 10, 2000 2:19 pm Subject: combined reply &

combined reply & list-reply

Is there some way to have the 'r' key in mutt 1.2 reply as a list-reply if the address matches lists or subscribe, and do a normal reply if it doesnt? This is how the 1.0 series worked for me, and now in 1.2 I keep sending replies to single people and not noticing it until days l