Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?
- To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?
- From: Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:01:46 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20160901100146.GA14019@copernicus.org.uk>
- In-reply-to: <20160831200426.GC10751@alum>
- References: <jwv1t1to0at.fsf-monnier+gmane.linux.debian.user@gnu.org> <20160830161810.GA8604@alum> <20160830174534.GC2935@copernicus.org.uk> <201608301931.08606.lisi.reisz@gmail.com> <20160830192645.GD2935@copernicus.org.uk> <20160830222234.GA15138@alum> <20160830233447.GE2935@copernicus.org.uk> <20160831200426.GC10751@alum>
On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 15:04:26 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 00:34:47 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> >
> > Additionally, I have learned a little more about mutt's behaviour.
> >
> > <list-reply> (default: L)
> >
> > Reply to the current or tagged message(s) by extracting any addresses which
> > match the regular expressions given by the lists or subscribe commands, but
> > also honor any Mail-Followup-To header(s) if the $honor_followup_to
> > configuration variable is set. In addition, the List-Post header field is
> > examined for mailto: URLs specifying a mailing list address. Using this
> > when replying to messages posted to mailing lists helps avoid duplicate
> > copies being sent to the author of the message you are replying to.
> >
> > Your mail had a Mail-Followup-To header to debian-user and Lisi Reisz. I
> > think it was this rather than the Cc that got me a telling off.
>
> You got there a lot faster than I did. Presumably you don't/didn't
> have any special treatment of followup_to and honor_followup_to in
> your .muttrc file.
I decided many years ago that 'set followup_to=yes' didn't do anything
for me. What I hadn't realised is that the combination of the default
honor_followup_to and pressing 'L' could lead to a CC'ing-by-proxy chain
of events.
Reply to: