Re: mutt to follow discussions.

[moseley@hank.org]

On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 02:37:14AM -0500, Nathan Poznick wrote:

> > Group reply (g) is prolly what you want.
> 
> Group reply will reply directly to the original sender, and then cc: the
> list.  This can lead to annoyances with list members, as the rule of
> thumb is:  "Don't cc: the original sender on list replies, unless they
> specifically ask for it."  It's a touchy point for some people, so it's
> best to err on the side of safety :-)

I used to feel that way, but now I like the cc.  The only thing I see wrong 
with it is a little waste of bandwidth.

But on the other hand it 

- gets responses to people that are asking for help fast (sometimes hours
faster on this list)

- makes it easy to filter on your own address and see responses to your own 
messages[1] which is very helpful on very busy lists (I'm on about twenty 
busy lists)

- duplicate messages are easy to filter by message ID if you don't want 
duplicates.

It would be nice if there was a header like Mail-Followup-To: to say you 
want to be cc:'d.

[1] which is a question I've been meaning to ask.  

I'd like to highlight index entries in a different color if the References:
(or In-Reply-To) header contains my domain so I can see responses in a 
thread I'm involved in.

I'm currently doing:

color index       yellow  black "~x hank\.org"   # References
color index       green black "~i hank\.org"     # Message ID
color index       blue  black "~h In-Reply-To:.*hank\.org

but I find that's a little slow when using imaps.  The ~h seems especially 
slow.  Any other way to do this?


Oh, another question -- how do I get mutt to look like:

  http://mutt.org/screenshots/index.gif

with the buttons(?) at the top?

-- 
Bill Moseley
moseley@hank.org