Paul wrote:
david wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> > Paul wrote:
> >
> > > i get bitten by this several times a year -- perhaps there's a
> > > way to configure around it.
> > >
> > > i often reply to my own mailing list posts. when i do so, mh
> > > attempts to reply to me, cc'ing the original recipient (i.e.,
> > > the list). but i think because i'm both the sender and the
> > > recipient, the To: header ends up missing entirely. for example,
> > > here's what the draft looks like if i start to reply to an old
> > > message i sent to this list:
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] sync'ing an mh mailstore between two
> machines?
> > > cc: nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
> > > In-reply-to:
<12129(_dot_)1211398023(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)boston(_dot_)ma(_dot_)us>
> > > References:
<E1JyqcD-0007Y8-N7(_at_)mnementh(_dot_)archaic(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk>
> <200805211914.m4LJExTY0>
> > > Fcc: outbox
> > > --------
> > >
> > > needless to say, if i don't notice, and simply send the message,
> > > it causes great confusion.
> > >
> > > the command i use to reply to a list looks like this, after
> > > expanding my wrapper scripts:
> > >
> > > repl -cc to -cc cc -form form.repl.usual <msgnumber>
> > >
> > > the contents of form.repl.usual look like this:
> > >
> > > %(lit)%(formataddr %<{reply-to}%|%<{from}%|%{sender}%>%>)\
> > > %<(nonnull)%(void(width))%(putaddr To: )\n%>\
> > > %<{subject}Subject: Re: %{subject}\n%>\
> > > %(lit)%(formataddr{to})%(formataddr{cc})%(formataddr(me))\
> > > %<(nonnull)%(void(width))%(putaddr cc: )\n%>\
> > > %;
> > > %; Make References: and In-reply-to: fields for threading.
> > > %; Use (void), (trim) and (putstr) to eat trailing whitespace.
> > > %;
> > > %<{message-id}In-reply-to: %{message-id}\n%>\
> > > %<{message-id}References: \
> > > %<{references}%(void{references})%(trim)%(putstr) %>\
> > > %(void{message-id})%(trim)%(putstr)\n%>\
> > > Reply-to: pgf(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)boston(_dot_)ma(_dot_)us
> > > Fcc: outbox
> > > --------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > i've just done a scan of the repl and mh-format man pages to see
> > > what might cause, or fix, this, but i'm missing it if it's there.
> > >
> > > any ideas?
> >
> > I add -cc me when replying to my own messages and suppress
> > the second copy (see below) by using -query. Inconvenient
> > and of course doesn't solve the problem. But maybe it gives
> > a clue on how to fix it: -cc me (or -cc all) restores the
> > To: header. But that seems like an unintended side effect:
> > I don't see why -cc should affect To:.
> >
> > And they also add my login name, even if my reply address is
> > in my Alternate-Mailboxes. I don't need two copies of the
> > message.
>
> That's because I had %(formataddr(me)) in my reply form
> (and so do you). Removing that got rid of the reply to my
> login name.
>
> So, adding -cc me (or -cc all) should get what you want.
at the expense of the extra cc to me, right? (unless i use -query)
Right, for messages that Cc: you. For messages that you
sent, there won't be an extra cc to you if you remove
%(formataddr(me)).
> Or, we could hack the code as shown below. That keeps
> the To: header to self, unless "-nocc me" was specified.
> It keeps the confusion between cc and To:, but at this
> point I don't think that's worth fixing.
did you attach the right patch? i'm having trouble seeing
that this will result in any change in behavior.
You're right, that patch doesn't change anything. And at this
point I don't think that the code should be changed. (Or I should
say, that I should change it.)
David
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers