Re: new Mail-Followup-To patch...please take a look...

[Josh Huber <huber@alum.wpi.edu>]

prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:

> Missed a M-x tabify, I guess.

Yes, thanks.

>> +      ;; Generate the Mail-Followup-To header if the header is not there...
>> +      (if (and (or message-subscribed-regexps
>> +		   message-subscribed-addresses
>> +		   message-subscribed-address-functions)
>> +	       (not (mail-fetch-field "mail-followup-to")))
>> +	  (message-generate-headers
>> +	   `(("Mail-Followup-To" . ,(message-make-mft))))
>> +	;; otherwise, delete the MFT header if the field is empty
>> +	(when (equal "" (mail-fetch-field "mail-followup-to"))
>> +	  (message-remove-header "Mail-Followup-To")))
>>        ;; Let the user do all of the above.
>>        (run-hooks 'message-header-hook))

> I had hoped that MFT would be enabled by default: existing
> configurations would automatically get MFT when sending to any
> to-address or to-list address.  (This would mean the 'subscribed
> parameter would have to be replaced with a complementary
> 'not-subscribed parameter, among other things.)  But if that's not
> going to be the case, then this chunk might as well be a hook
> function.  It'll just be one extra line needed in .gnus to enable
> MFT.

Well, that's what I suggested.

I think something like:

(setq message-subscribed-addresses
      (gnus-find-subscrbied-addresses))

in the .gnus file would be an ok thing to have users do, wouldn't it?
Or, we could have that as an option in the customize menu as well...

> '(lambda ...) does not get byte-compiled.  (function (lambda ...))
> does, and otherwise means the same thing.

Okay, thanks :)

> How about:
[snip]

> This absorbs (the equivalent of) message-mft-helper into
> message-make-mft, doesn't trample match-data, and might evaluate
> fewer string-matches on average.  (It checks the first address
> against each regexp, then the second address, ..., instead of
> checking the first regexp against each address, ....  I'm guessing
> that when there is a match, the first address is likely to match,
> and the first regexp is not.)

Thanks for checking my elisp.  I don't know it that well yet, but you
wrote essentially what I had wanted to write, but didn't know exactly
how to :)

-- 
Josh Huber