[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: lists vs. subscribe (was Re: mutt to follow discussions.)

On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 02:39:13PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> The logic for the mail-followup-to header is a little more
> complicated, and involves both subscribed and known lists.  
> First of all, mutt will only generate a mail-followup-to header if
> (1) the $followup_to option is set, 

Which is the default.

> and (2) the message goes to a
> *known* list.  The header will then point to *all* recipients of the
> message (i.e., all the lists and anyone who may be CCed).  
> Your own address will be added to the mail-followup-to header if you
> are not subscribed to any of the lists to which you direct
> responses.

Or in other words, if you want replies sent only to the list, then use
"subscribe", but if you want your own address added to the
Mail-Followup-To header (so you receive a direct copy) then use "lists". 
I prefer "lists" because the mail gets to me sooner.

I wonder what percent of mail clients use Mail-Followup-To and then what
percent of users of those clients use the "List" reply function.

And replying to this message, I've got debian-user as a "lists", but not 
mutt-users, thus To: debian-user and Cc: mutt-users.  If mutt was a 
"lists" or subscribed then they would both be on the To: line.

> In pseudo-code:
>     if ((message goes to known list) && (we haven't obtained \
>         mail_followup_to from user or from message we reply to))) {
>     	copy all recipients to mail-followup-to;
> 	remove self from mail-followup-to;
>  	if (!(mail-followup-to points to subscribed list)) {
> 	    	add self to mail-followup-to;
>         }
>     }
> Hope that helps,

Yes, very much.  Thanks,

Bill Moseley

Reply to: