Re: [Evolution] Reply for list messages should go back to the list

[Patrick O'Callaghan <poc usb ve>]

On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:34 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >                 Personal Reply          Non-Munged List
> Munged List w/o Option  Munged List with Option
> > Ctrl-R          to RT                   to RT                   to
> RT                   to SA
> > Ctrl-L          to RT+CC                to LP                   to
> LP                   to LP
> > Shift-Ctrl-R    to RT+CC                to LP+CC                to
> RT+CC                to LP+CC
> > Does that fit with what you're thinking? I'm ignoring nag screens,
> > toolbar changes etc. for now. 
>
> Where 'to RT' of course means 'to RT if it exists, else SA'.
>
> And 'to LP' means 'to LP if it exists, else to RT+CC'.(which in turn
> means 'SA+CC' if there are no LP or RT headers, of course)

Naturally. I'm assuming "use the Reply-To header" has its usual meaning,
i.e. use it if it exists, otherwise use the From: address, and so on.

> All that is what I have implemented, *except* that there should be no
> 'LP+CC' in the Shift-Ctrl-R row. It's 'RT+CC' for the first three
> columns, and 'SA+CC' in the fourth where it ignores the Reply-To:
> header.

Makes sense. My head started to spin a little when creating the
table :-)

> But really, I don't *want* to see a table like this. The behaviour
> should be *consistent* across all the columns, or we're just making
> things more confusing and making errors more *likely*.

The table is just between ourselves so we know we're on the same page.
If by consistent you mean identical, I don't see how that's possible.
The meaning of the various commands necessarily changes according to
context. I agree this should be minimized, but I doubt it can be
eliminated.

> What we have
> right now is:
>
>  Ctrl-R: Uses the Reply-To: header if valid, else the From: header.
>  Ctrl-Shift-R: Uses the same as Ctrl-R, and adds the Cc: recipients.
>  Ctrl-L: Uses the List-Post: header if valid, else same as
> Ctrl-Shift-R.
>
> A List-Post: header is considered valid if it exists.
>
> A Reply-To: header is considered valid if it exists, *unless* the
> anti-munging option is set and there is a List-Post: header which
> contains the same address.

How is that different from the table (with your amendments)?

> If we just take that and add an option to add 'Reply to List' to the
> toolbar instead of 'Reply to All', how does that work for you?

In addition to rather than instead of, to avoid mutable toolbars, but
that's more a matter of personal taste.

poc