Re: [Nmh-workers] header issue, when replying to self

[David Levine]

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: address@hidden
>  > > >     In-reply-to: <address@hidden>
>  > > >     References: <address@hidden> 
>  > <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: address@hidden
>  > > >     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