Re: "r", "R"

Pete Phillips <pete <at> smtl.co.uk> wrote:

> Me also.  personally it is not an issue either way for me as long as the
> current behaviour still works. 

Mark D. Baushke <mdb <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> > One implementation would be to leave r as it is,
> > honoring the value of mh-reply-default-reply-to
> > and maintaining backwards compatibility. Then,
> > add an R command that sets
> > mh-reply-default-reply-to to "all". You could
> > then set mh-reply-default-reply-to to "to" and
> > have the behavior you desire.
> 
> I guess I have no objections to this approach.

Hey Greg, would you mind submitting a feature request for this?

> Are you planning to add some kind of
> mh-reply-to-all function which may be bound to the
> R command? (see the untested mh-reply-to-all code
> after my .signature).

Setting mh-reply-default-reply-to was the first thing that occurred to
me. Passing specific arguments to mh-reply as in your example may be
preferable. Any opinions out there?

--

-- 
Bill Wohler <wohler <at> newt.com>  http://www.newt.com/wohler/  GnuPG ID:610BD9AD

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft 
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/