* Process mark and follow up/reply
@ 2010-08-24 17:45 Adam Sjøgren
2010-08-28 21:48 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Adam Sjøgren @ 2010-08-24 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ding
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Process mark and follow up/reply
2010-08-24 17:45 Process mark and follow up/reply Adam Sjøgren
@ 2010-08-28 21:48 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2010-08-30 13:36 ` Ted Zlatanov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 2010-08-28 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ding
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Process mark and follow up/reply
2010-08-28 21:48 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
@ 2010-08-30 13:36 ` Ted Zlatanov
2010-08-30 18:06 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2010-08-30 13:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ding
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Process mark and follow up/reply
2010-08-30 13:36 ` Ted Zlatanov
@ 2010-08-30 18:06 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2010-08-31 18:40 ` Ted Zlatanov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 2010-08-30 18:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ding
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Process mark and follow up/reply
2010-08-30 18:06 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
@ 2010-08-31 18:40 ` Ted Zlatanov
2010-08-31 18:47 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2010-08-31 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ding
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Process mark and follow up/reply
2010-08-31 18:40 ` Ted Zlatanov
@ 2010-08-31 18:47 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2010-08-31 18:56 ` Ted Zlatanov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 2010-08-31 18:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ding
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Process mark and follow up/reply
2010-08-31 18:47 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
@ 2010-08-31 18:56 ` Ted Zlatanov
2010-08-31 21:08 ` Adam Sjøgren
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2010-08-31 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ding
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Process mark and follow up/reply
2010-08-31 18:56 ` Ted Zlatanov
@ 2010-08-31 21:08 ` Adam Sjøgren
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Adam Sjøgren @ 2010-08-31 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ding
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-08-31 21:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-08-24 17:45 Process mark and follow up/reply Adam Sjøgren
2010-08-28 21:48 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2010-08-30 13:36 ` Ted Zlatanov
2010-08-30 18:06 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2010-08-31 18:40 ` Ted Zlatanov
2010-08-31 18:47 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2010-08-31 18:56 ` Ted Zlatanov
2010-08-31 21:08 ` Adam Sjøgren
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).