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

List:       mutt-users
Subject:    Re: If List Reply Fails, Fall Back to Group Reply or Reply
From:       Cameron Simpson <cs () zip ! com ! au>
Date:       2015-09-07 5:31:23
Message-ID: 20150907053123.GA3067 () cskk ! homeip ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On 07Sep2015 00:41, Grady Martin <sunnycemetery@gmail.com> 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
>>advantage of them, you must specify which addresses belong to mailing lists,
>>and which mailing lists you are subscribed to.
>
>Laziness is a virtue.  Do you think it would be possible to abbreviate the
>trouble of having to specify regexes or addresses for every mailing list?  As
>is, I use <list-reply> for lists, and that fine works--but it would be nice to
>have one, intelligent reply command.

I use <group-reply> myself. For everthing: lists, direct email, etc. Of course 
one must review the To/CC this way, but it works well for me. I've practically 
forgotten that the "r" and "l" keys exist...

I confess I have never understood the mindset around making "lists" and 
"subscribe" separate notions. Could someone outline the use case for this to me 
please?

Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]