1 Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
5 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81204431FAF
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
\r
13 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled
\r
14 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
15 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
16 with ESMTP id MLdi3x68aivJ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
17 Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
\r
18 Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6])
\r
19 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
\r
20 (No client certificate requested)
\r
21 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9267D431FB6
\r
22 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
\r
23 Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])
\r
24 by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
\r
25 (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)
\r
26 id 1Sk8kb-0003HU-VC; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:02:56 +0100
\r
27 Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223]
\r
29 by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69)
\r
30 (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)
\r
31 id 1Sk8kb-0002S1-FQ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:02:49 +0100
\r
32 From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>
\r
33 To: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>,
\r
34 Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>,
\r
35 Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
36 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Restore original keybinding ('r' = reply-to-all)
\r
37 In-Reply-To: <87hatwqoz9.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>
\r
38 References: <1340815565-21083-1-git-send-email-cworth@cworth.org>
\r
39 <87obo4zljq.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
\r
40 <87hatwqoz9.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>
\r
41 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.13.2+63~g548a9bf (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1
\r
42 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
\r
43 Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:02:44 +0100
\r
44 Message-ID: <87vcibnckr.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
46 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
\r
47 X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223
\r
48 X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :)
\r
49 X-QM-Body-MD5: c8cba90a78ca7e5d2906b9eaab1ecb21 (of first 20000 bytes)
\r
50 X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8
\r
51 X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: -
\r
52 X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to
\r
54 spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.
\r
55 This message scored -1.8 points.
\r
56 Summary of the scoring:
\r
57 * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
\r
59 * [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org]
\r
60 * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
\r
61 provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)
\r
62 * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
\r
64 * 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
\r
65 X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean
\r
66 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
67 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
69 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
70 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
71 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
72 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
73 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
74 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
75 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
76 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
77 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
78 X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:03:04 -0000
\r
80 On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
\r
81 > On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:55:53 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
\r
82 >> On Wed, Jun 27 2012, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
\r
83 >> > Since the beginning of time, the emacs interface provided a keybinding
\r
84 >> > of 'r' to reply to a message, (and originally, all recipients).
\r
86 >> > Then, before release 0.12 the emacs interface acquired a new
\r
87 >> > reply-to-sender only feature. In commit
\r
88 >> > f02b475fa781bb5df3358c73213e7633a99f016e the new feature was put onto
\r
89 >> > the original keybinding, (and reply-to-all was moved to 'R').
\r
91 >> > This restores the original keybinding and uses the new keybinding for
\r
92 >> > the new feature.
\r
94 > My bias is probably apparent in that I pushed the original patch...
\r
96 > I think the there is potential for unfortunate mistakes with either set
\r
97 > of bindings. On the one hand sending replies to unintended people can be
\r
98 > very embarrassing. On the other hand, forgetting to reply to the group
\r
99 > can also be problematic. The latter is easier to correct, _if_ it is
\r
102 > When we discussed this earlier, there were people who supported both
\r
103 > options as default. I broke the tie based on my experience with other
\r
104 > mailers, and the fact that apparently I worry more about sending things
\r
105 > to too many people than to too few. Obviously Carl would have chosen
\r
108 > It would be easy enough to add a customization variable to swap the
\r
109 > outcomes of r and R; iirc this is what wanderlust (or maybe VM) does. It
\r
110 > seems that would not really make people any happier, since the complaint
\r
111 > is not that it is hard to do the keybindings, but that the bindings
\r
114 > I do worry that by changing back, we annoy a whole new set of
\r
115 > people. I'm not worried for myself; I can add the equivalent keybindings
\r
116 > to my .emacs. I do (hypothetically) sympathize with people who just got
\r
117 > used to the new behaviour and are surprised again.
\r
121 I agree with David on all the above and I do think that the fact that
\r
122 most other mail user agents (in my experience) default to reply to
\r
123 sender is a point in favour of the status quo.
\r
125 Of course, it is not my project so I am happy to go along with whatever
\r
128 On a practical note to help with Daniel's point that it is easier to
\r
129 remove recipients than add them: would it be possible to add a key
\r
130 command to message mode to add the other addresses? Or put the other
\r
131 addresses into the kill ring so they could be pasted into a cc line?
\r