Mail-Followup-To
Geoffrey Irving
Mail-Followup-To: Geoffrey Irving <irv...@naml.us>,
duck...@googlegroups.com
gmail seems to interpret this as a Reply-To header. Do you know if
these are coming from google groups or you? Do you seem them in
messages from me?
Geoffrey
Dylan Alex Simon
They're coming from me. This is happening because you (gmail) and I (mutt)
have different ideas about how mailing lists should work. I (mutt) think
that, if I send a message to a list to which I am subscribed, that group
replies should go only to the list, and mutt is trying to make this happen:
> followup_to
> Type: boolean
> Default: yes
>
> Controls whether or not the "Mail-Followup-To:" header field is generated when
> sending mail. When set, Mutt will generate this field when you are replying
> to a known mailing list, specified with the "subscribe" or "lists" commands.
>
> This field has two purposes. First, preventing you from receiving duplicate
> copies of replies to messages which you send to mailing lists, and second,
> ensuring that you do get a reply separately for any messages sent to known
> lists to which you are not subscribed.
>
> The header will contain only the list's address for subscribed lists, and both
> the list address and your own email address for unsubscribed lists. Without
> this header, a group reply to your message sent to a subscribed list will be
> sent to both the list and your address, resulting in two copies of the same
> email for you.
Since you requested that the sender be copied too (which does result in me
getting two copies), I copy you and so it inserts your address as well.
Probably you would prefer that this should be off (as it effectively is for
mail you send), but it's not clear how to do so only for one list, and besides
I agree with the motivation: it should be up to the sender whether they are
copied on replies.
:-Dylan
Geoffrey Irving
The main motivation for turning it off is to support more exact email
filtering. People should be allowed to filter based on whether
they're involved in a conversation or not, which requires reply-to-all
to be meaningful.
Geoffrey