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

[Pete Biggs <pete biggs org uk>]

> > > The operation *does*. You're getting confused by the fact that the
> > > current menu items get disabled when you're not looking at a list
> > > message.
> > >
> > > But actually, some lists don't have a List-Post: header. If there are
> > > *any* List-* headers, you'll see the list operations get enabled, and
> > > then you'll see quite clearly that the reply-to-list operation falls
> > > back to replying to all. Even without having to look at the source or
> > > take my word for it.
> >
> > I'm not entirely convinced that this is indeed the case.  I've just
> > crafted some messages and as far as I can see only if there is a
> > List-Post: header is the Reply-to-list active in any way 
>
> The Reply-to-list option (and other list submenu) should be active if
> any of these match (see camel/camel-mime-utils.c):
>
>         { "List-Post", "[ \t]*<mailto:([^@>]+)@?([^ \n\t\r>]*)" },
>         { "List-Id", "[^<]*<([^\\.>]+)\\.?([^ \n\t\r>]*)" },
>         { "Mailing-List", "[ \t]*list ([^ ]+)@?([^ \n\t\r>;]*)" },
>         { "Originator", "[ \t]*([^ ]+)@?([^ \n\t\r>]*)" },
>         { "X-Mailing-List", "[ \t]*<?([^@>]+)@?([^ \n\t\r>]*)" },
>         { "X-Loop", "[ \t]*([^ ]+)@?([^ \n\t\r>]*)" },
>         { "X-List", "[ \t]*([^ ]+)@?([^ \n\t\r>]*)" },
>         { "Sender", "[ \t]*owner-([^ ]+)@?([^ @\n\t\r>]*)" },
>         { "Sender", "[ \t]*([^ ]+)-owner ?([^ @\n\t\r>]*)" },
>         { "Delivered-To", "[ \t]*mailing list ([^ ]+)@?([^ \n\t\r>]*)" },
>         { "Return-Path", "[ \t]*<?owner-([^@>]+)@?([^ \n\t\r>]*)" },
>         { "X-BeenThere", "[ \t]*([^ ]+)@?([^ \n\t\r>]*)" },
>         { "List-Unsubscribe", "<mailto:(.+)-unsubscribe@([^ \n\t\r>]*)" },

OK. So it's not just any List-*: header, there's a specific list of
headers it needs (with specific formats in some cases).  Fine, that
explains why my test didn't work.  Thanks for explaining it.

> I'd send you the same messages to test, but ISTR your mail software is
> broken and would silently delete both of them because it thinks it's
> already seen them?
>
> (I say "broken" because of all the fun I can have with it. I can send
> messages to the list that I know your system will delete without you
> seeing them -- and I when I am directly Cc'd on messages which were also
> sent to the list, I can quickly send you a different message with the
> same Message-Id:, thus ensuring that you never receive the real list
> message :)

No, I think you got the wrong end of the stick on this - it's not my
mail software that only lets me see one version, I only ever get sent
one version by the mailing list software because it tries to remove
duplicates and if it sees my name on the CC: or To: list, it doesn't
send me the list copy.  On other mailing lists I get multiple copies
without any problems.

> > The only time I use Reply-to-all on list messages rather than
> > Reply-to-list is when there are multiple lists involved - obviously any
> > particular message only has one List-Post: header, so in order to send a
> > message to multiple lists I need to use Reply-all.  I also make sure I
> > edit out any superfluous CC: entries.
>
> That's what I was looking for; thanks. Do you do this often enough that
> you really want a third toolbar button, and the existing drop-down
> choice on the 'Group Reply' button isn't sufficient?

I don't know - I don't have an install of 2.30.x that I have used
sufficiently often to know how usable the drop down list paradigm is in
this context.

But as I have said a few times, this isn't really about my usability - I
have been using Evo with lists for enough years now that my muscle
memory will probably continue using ctrl-L no matter what.  What I would
like is for the Reply-to-List to be more prominent to encourage people
to use that rather than just blindly replying to the user. In my naivety
I thought the simplest way would be to just add a Reply-to-list button
on the toolbar 

P.