Override MFT?

Override MFT?

[Kai Großjohann]

I get a message where MFT appears to be wrong.  (A sent the message
to me, Cc'ing B, but MFT gives me!  I think I don't need to send a
followup to myself.)

I tried F, S W, S V.

kai
-- 
Silence is foo!

Re: Override MFT?

[Paul Jarc]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) wrote:
> I get a message where MFT appears to be wrong.  (A sent the message
> to me, Cc'ing B, but MFT gives me!  I think I don't need to send a
> followup to myself.)
>
> I tried F, S W, S V.

message-dont-reply-to-name ought to override that part of MFT.  If it
doesn't: (setq message-use-mail-followup-to 'ask)


paul

Re: Override MFT?

[Kai Großjohann]

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

> Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) wrote:
>> I get a message where MFT appears to be wrong.  (A sent the message
>> to me, Cc'ing B, but MFT gives me!  I think I don't need to send a
>> followup to myself.)
>>
>> I tried F, S W, S V.
>
> message-dont-reply-to-name ought to override that part of MFT.  If it
> doesn't: (setq message-use-mail-followup-to 'ask)

Well, err.  I tried all them keys, and I got messages to the
addresses in Reply-to (which were two addresses of A), but B was not
included.  I had expected at least `S V' to include B...

kai
-- 
Silence is foo!

Re: Override MFT?

[Paul Jarc]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) wrote:
> Well, err.  I tried all them keys, and I got messages to the
> addresses in Reply-to (which were two addresses of A), but B was not
> included.  I had expected at least `S V' to include B...

Oh, so MFT included *only* you?  Hm.  Frobbing
message-use-mail-followup-to seems like the thing to do in that case.
I guess it would be nice to have a key that would set m-u-m-f-t to nil
or 'ask for just the next followup, and set it back to its original
value afterwards.  Or something.  I'm not sure how to do that, though.
Maybe gnus-summary-very-wide-reply* should always bind m-u-m-f-t, but
that seems intrusive.

Was this MFT automatically generated?  If so, the software that did
that should be fixed.


paul

Re: Override MFT?

[Kai Großjohann]

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

> Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) wrote:
>> Well, err.  I tried all them keys, and I got messages to the
>> addresses in Reply-to (which were two addresses of A), but B was not
>> included.  I had expected at least `S V' to include B...
>
> Oh, so MFT included *only* you?

Yep.

> Hm.  Frobbing message-use-mail-followup-to seems like the thing to
> do in that case.  I guess it would be nice to have a key that would
> set m-u-m-f-t to nil or 'ask for just the next followup, and set it
> back to its original value afterwards.  Or something.  I'm not sure
> how to do that, though.  Maybe gnus-summary-very-wide-reply* should
> always bind m-u-m-f-t, but that seems intrusive.

I don't feel it's intrusive.  But maybe that's because I don't know
what is the difference between wide reply and very wide reply.

> Was this MFT automatically generated?  If so, the software that did
> that should be fixed.

A, B and me are all using Gnus.  But how that MFT came about, I don't
know.  Hm.

kai
-- 
Silence is foo!

Re: Override MFT?

[Paul Jarc]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) wrote:
> A, B and me are all using Gnus.  But how that MFT came about, I don't
> know.  Hm.

A guess: A has your address as to-list or to-address for some group, and
also has (t (subscribed . t)) in gnus-parameters, or equivalent.  If
this is the case, A should add a more specific entry to set subscribed
to nil for the group in question.


paul