[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mutt-dev
Subject:    Re: wish: list-reply replies to too many (should only to MFT)
From:       Rado S <rado () math ! uni-hamburg ! de>
Date:       2005-11-16 17:24:22
Message-ID: 20051116172422.GG2785 () sun36 ! math ! uni-hamburg ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

[=- Paul Walker wrote on Wed 16.Nov'05 at 16:22:43 +0000 -=]

> On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:40:19PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
> 
> > Why not have MFT override recipients completely for list-reply,
> > to have _all_ and _only_ those in MFT?
> 
> My current understanding - and please correct me when it's wrong:
> 
> * group-reply will reply to all, MFT entries and lists
> * list-reply will reply to known lists, as well as putting MFT in copy
> * reply will reply to just MFT

When "honor_followup_to=ask-yes" and "To: subscribed-list", then

- reply respects only RT (reply-to), no MFT,
- group-reply asks MFT 1st, then RT ...
	- both MFT + RT = no -> To: + From:
	- MFT no, RT yes -> To: + RT:
	- MFT yes -> MFT only (!!!), no To:, no RT, no From.
- list-reply asks only MFT and sends to MFT + list.

I expect list-reply to act like group-reply when MFT exists.

> That would seem to cover all bases. If we make the change you're
> suggesting, don't we lose an option - replying to just lists and
> MFT people?

People wanting personal replies in additon to replies being sent
to a list should add both their addr and the list to MFT
explicitely so they'll get what they want, no?

Compare with
http://dsv.su.se/jpalme/ietf/draft-drums-mfwupto-01.txt
(the only reference I found closest to being "standard" ;)

-- 
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
Even if it seems insignificant, in fact EVERY effort counts
for a shared task, at least to show your deserving attitude.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]