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

Re: Has anyone ever thought of getting the reply-to changed?



David P James wrote:
He was posting via a newsgroup, that's why (if you ask me, TB screws that up too).

SLRN is god. Learn it, love it, live it. Unless decoding binaries in which case Pan is god. :)

Reply to sender (as in TB Mail, but not present in TB News)
Reply All (as in TB Mail and News)
Reply List/Group (as the Reply button does in TB News right now)

Yup. See my reply to myself about the relevant bugs on TB's Bugzilla. Those are mentioned in one. :)

Anyway, from a TB user perspective the best way to deal with replying to the list is the following:

Do not press reply to reply to a message; instead right-click on the To: field of the message (which of course is debian-user@lists.debian.org) and select "Compose Mail To". This opens up a message composition window.

Nope, not the best way. Here's the best way. Click Reply-to-all. Now click on the little card next to the name of the sender. This highlights the address. Hit delete. Click the dropdown on the list address, change it to To:. Compose as needed. As you found out your method breaks threading. This one does not and really isn't all that hard. :)

That's what I did before I made the switch to kmail, which has all manner of wonderful features including reply-list.

I was on kmail about a year ago. I didn't like the direction they were going (IE "personalities" instead of true separate accounts). Moved to Sylpheed-claws and stuck with it for the longest time. However SC didn't handle IMAP properly. TBird handles IMAP properly, has built in Bayesian filtering, keeps account separate. There are only two things I am missing. The first is on-the-fly spell checking and the other is the reply-to-list functionality. Aside from those two niglets TBirds a best of breed IMHO.

--
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
       PGP Key: 8B6E99C5       | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------



Reply to: