Process mark and follow up/reply

Process mark and follow up/reply

[Adam Sjøgren]

  Hi.


I was just doing this today:

 * Process-mark four emails, using #
 * Follow up, using F

This opened a buffer with the four emails quoted, as expected, but the
To: header only contained the sender (/Reply-To) from the _first_ email,
and not, as I expected, the senders of _all_ the marked emails.

Am I expecting the wrong thing, missing some configuration that I could
frob, or is this something that Gnus ought to be changed to do?


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "But we are stubborn."                                       Adam Sjøgren
                                                         asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: Process mark and follow up/reply

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

asjo@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) writes:

> This opened a buffer with the four emails quoted, as expected, but the
> To: header only contained the sender (/Reply-To) from the _first_ email,
> and not, as I expected, the senders of _all_ the marked emails.

That's the documented behaviour, I think.  It might make more sense to
include all the To/Cc headers from all the articles...  Hm.  I can't
really see any instances where it wouldn't make sense, but I have a
feeling this was discussed before...

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Process mark and follow up/reply

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:48:17 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> asjo@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) writes:
>> This opened a buffer with the four emails quoted, as expected, but the
>> To: header only contained the sender (/Reply-To) from the _first_ email,
>> and not, as I expected, the senders of _all_ the marked emails.

LMI> That's the documented behaviour, I think.  It might make more sense to
LMI> include all the To/Cc headers from all the articles...  Hm.  I can't
LMI> really see any instances where it wouldn't make sense, but I have a
LMI> feeling this was discussed before...

I don't recall the discussion; I'm in favor of using all the names as
Adam suggested.

Ted

Re: Process mark and follow up/reply

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> I don't recall the discussion; I'm in favor of using all the names as
> Adam suggested.

Actually, this was implemented in 2001 with the `S v' command and
friends ("very wide reply").

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Process mark and follow up/reply

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:06:36 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>> I don't recall the discussion; I'm in favor of using all the names as
>> Adam suggested.

LMI> Actually, this was implemented in 2001 with the `S v' command and
LMI> friends ("very wide reply").

If I mark multiple articles, chances are I want the very wide reply.
The user shouldn't carry the burden of figuring this out or remembering
a different command in a slightly different context.

Ted

Re: Process mark and follow up/reply

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> LMI> Actually, this was implemented in 2001 with the `S v' command and
> LMI> friends ("very wide reply").
>
> If I mark multiple articles, chances are I want the very wide reply.
> The user shouldn't carry the burden of figuring this out or remembering
> a different command in a slightly different context.

We could just delete the `S W' (i. e. `F') code and point `S w' at the
`S V' code.  But it'd be a quite user-visible change.

On the other hand, like we said before, I can't really imagine somebody
not wanting the `S v' action.  It'd be like "I have this range of
articles that I want to respond to, but I want the responses only to go
to the senders/recipients of this first message".  I mean, it's possible
that somebody would want that, but then they could just delete the extra
Cc addresses manually.

I vote for removing the `F' code, pointing `F' at the `S V' code and
then undefining `S V'.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Process mark and follow up/reply

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:47:00 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> I vote for removing the `F' code, pointing `F' at the `S V' code and
LMI> then undefining `S V'.

That's two votes in favor then.

Ted

Re: Process mark and follow up/reply

[Adam Sjøgren]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:56:49 -0500, Ted wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:47:00 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 
LMI> I vote for removing the `F' code, pointing `F' at the `S V' code and
LMI> then undefining `S V'.

> That's two votes in favor then.

And my implicit vote, too.


  :-),

   Adam

-- 
 "Didn't matter to me what I said. Still doesn't,             Adam Sjøgren
  really."                                               asjo@koldfront.dk