Mark-resolve-for-reply

[Yuri D'Elia]

This is something that I used to do in mutt: mark multiple messages from
the same author, then hit reply-tagged.

The reply contains an union of all the senders, and a concatenation of
all the messages.

When I'm looking at a thread, and I want to answer logically to a
discussion, I'd rather combine what's relevant in a single message.

Similarly, the same would make sense for forward. You can use capture
on marks though, so maybe that's not needed.

[Joost Kremers]

On Wed, Apr 13 2016, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
> This is something that I used to do in mutt: mark multiple messages from
> the same author, then hit reply-tagged.
>
> The reply contains an union of all the senders, and a concatenation of
> all the messages.

+1

This is probably the one thing that still has me thinking sometimes "why
oh why did I ever leave mutt behind?"

--
Joost Kremers
Life has its moments

[Dirk-Jan C. Binnema]

I think you should be able to get the union of recipients to a set of
marked messages (with a bit of elisp); however, can't think of an easy
way to get the concatenation of message bodies (since we don't have the
information in the headers view).

Kind regards,
Dirk.

--
Dirk-Jan C. Binnema Helsinki, Finland
e:dj...@djcbsoftware.nl w:www.djcbsoftware.nl
pgp: D09C E664 897D 7D39 5047 A178 E96A C7A1 017D DA3C

[Yuri D'Elia]

On Thu, Apr 14 2016, Dirk-Jan C. Binnema <dj...@djcbsoftware.nl> wrote:
> I think you should be able to get the union of recipients to a set of
> marked messages (with a bit of elisp); however, can't think of an easy
> way to get the concatenation of message bodies (since we don't have the
> information in the headers view).

Is there a function to generate/render the body of a msg-id?

[Yuri D'Elia]

On Wed, Apr 13 2016, Joost Kremers <joostk...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> The reply contains an union of all the senders, and a concatenation of
>> all the messages.
>
> +1
>
> This is probably the one thing that still has me thinking sometimes "why
> oh why did I ever leave mutt behind?"

There's something nice in every *nix mail client I've used over the
years. But yeah, mutt hits a sweet spot. I still rotate around mu4e,
gnus (which I still use for nntp) and mutt.

I still use mutt for tools that need to send mail from the cli. mutt can
open a ~12k messages maildir in 1.2 seconds (with ext4 + boring i5
broadwell).

This is less than it takes for emacs to start, and without indexing to
booth. Limiting is also blazing fast, even when using body. With
incremental updating on new messages, one might argue that you won't
even /need/ indexing with mutt.

From gnus I still miss adaptive scoring.

Tree rendering is also lacking in mu4e compared to both.

[Dirk-Jan C. Binnema]

On Thursday Apr 14 2016, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
but that's not
really meant for programmatic use.

If you want to do more complicated things, I'd recommend checking out
mu-guile.