Package: gnus
Version: 5.11+v0.10.dfsg-3
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
"When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon
copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to
be copied."
-- http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
I could not find a way to follow this guideline with gnus easily. The
only solutions that I found [1] requires me to manually specify "To" address
for every mailing list. When I asked other gnus users the replies I got
ranged from "I only read the lists" to "I use S W and then always
manually trim the headers".
Let's use the message <87tyqztpu1....@pirx.pps.jussieu.fr> on
debian-devel as an example:
1) If I hit "R" then gnus sets "To: Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@pps.jussieu.fr>"
2) If I hit "S W" then gnus sets "To: Juliusz Chroboczek
<j...@pps.jussieu.fr>" and "Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org,
"Marco d'Itri" <m...@linux.it>"
The attached patch against git HEAD implements "S L" that works just
like "R" but sends the reply to the address that is listed in the
"List-Post" header as specified in RFC 2369.
So, why am I sending this to Debian? Firstly, I could not find an
upstream bug tracker. They seem to prefer using a news group and my news
skills are very rusty. Secondly, I'm kind of hoping that you could
review the patch at least slightly before forwarding it since my elisp
skills are not very good either :-)
For completeness I'm also attaching the testcase message
<87tyqztpu1....@pirx.pps.jussieu.fr>.
>From 95646f7e58a571eca0f97929d80e262c9fdd54b6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Timo Juhani Lindfors <timo.lindf...@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 21:53:53 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] Implement gnus-summary-reply-to-list-with-original (S L)
This is similar to "Reply to list" in mutt and evolution.
---
lisp/gnus-msg.el | 10 ++++++++++
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lisp/gnus-msg.el b/lisp/gnus-msg.el
index 093eec3..4c5664b 100644
--- a/lisp/gnus-msg.el
+++ b/lisp/gnus-msg.el
@@ -351,6 +351,7 @@ Thank you for your help in stamping out bugs.
"r" gnus-summary-reply
"y" gnus-summary-yank-message
"R" gnus-summary-reply-with-original
+ "L" gnus-summary-reply-to-list-with-original
"w" gnus-summary-wide-reply
"W" gnus-summary-wide-reply-with-original
"v" gnus-summary-very-wide-reply
@@ -1154,6 +1155,15 @@ The original article will be yanked."
(interactive "P")
(gnus-summary-reply (gnus-summary-work-articles n) wide))
+(defun gnus-summary-reply-to-list-with-original (n &optional wide)
+ "Start composing a reply mail to the current message.
+The reply goes only to the mailing list.
+The original article will be yanked."
+ (interactive "P")
+ (let ((message-reply-to-function #'(lambda nil
+ `((To . ,(gnus-mailing-list-followup-to))))))
+ (gnus-summary-reply (gnus-summary-work-articles n) wide)))
+
(defun gnus-summary-reply-broken-reply-to (&optional yank wide very-wide)
"Like `gnus-summary-reply' except removing reply-to field.
If prefix argument YANK is non-nil, the original article is yanked
--
1.7.5.1
X-From-Line: bounce-debian-devel=timo.lindfors=iki...@lists.debian.org Sun Apr
25 20:38:05 2010
Return-path: <bounce-debian-devel=timo.lindfors=iki...@lists.debian.org>
Envelope-to: lindi@localhost
Delivery-date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:38:05 +0300
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=sauna.l.org) by sauna.l.org with
esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from
<bounce-debian-devel=timo.lindfors=iki...@lists.debian.org>) id
1O65mP-0005Ea-IK for lindi@localhost; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:38:05 +0300
Received: from mail.netsonic.fi [194.29.192.90] by sauna.l.org with IMAP
(fetchmail-6.3.9-rc2) for <lindi@localhost> (single-drop); Sun, 25 Apr 2010
20:38:05 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from netsonic.fi ([unix socket]) by mail.netsonic.fi (Cyrus
v2.3.7-Invoca-RPM-2.3.7-4mke) with LMTPA; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:31:25 +0300
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.3
Received: from jatkuu.iki.fi (jatkuu.iki.fi [212.16.98.53]) by netsonic.fi
(Postfix) with ESMTP id 99BE11F118C9 for <timo.lindf...@netsonic.fi>; Sun, 25
Apr 2010 21:31:24 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from liszt.debian.org (liszt.debian.org [82.195.75.100]) by
jatkuu.iki.fi (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o3PHam2Z004087 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3
cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <timo.lindf...@iki.fi>;
Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:36:50 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by liszt.debian.org (Postfix)
with QMQP id AF06A13A523A; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:36:34 +0000 (UTC)
Old-Return-Path: <j...@pps.jussieu.fr>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on liszt.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=PGPSIGNATURE autolearn=failed
version=3.2.5
X-Original-To: lists-debian-de...@liszt.debian.org
Delivered-To: lists-debian-de...@liszt.debian.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by liszt.debian.org (Postfix)
with ESMTP id CF9D313A48EC for <lists-debian-de...@liszt.debian.org>; Sun, 25
Apr 2010 17:36:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3
tests=[BAYES_00=-2, PGPSIGNATURE=-5] autolearn=ham
Received: from liszt.debian.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lists.debian.org
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 2525) with ESMTP id 5FjdcJoP1tJW for
<lists-debian-de...@liszt.debian.org>; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:36:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-policyd-weight: DYN_NJABL=ERR(0) NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5
NOT_IN_BL_NJABL=-1.5 DSBL_ORG=SKIP(0) CL_IP_EQ_HELO_IP=-2 (check from:
.jussieu. - helo: .witko.kerneis. - helo-domain: .kerneis.)
FROM/MX_MATCHES_NOT_HELO(DOMAIN)=0; rate: -5
X-Greylist: delayed 1110 seconds by postgrey-1.31 at liszt; Sun, 25 Apr 2010
17:36:21 UTC
Received: from witko.kerneis.info (witko.kerneis.info [213.186.56.95])
(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client did not present a certificate)
by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E1BD13A523A
for <debian-de...@lists.debian.org>; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:36:15 +0000
(UTC)
Received: from bob75-11-78-249-231-16.fbx.proxad.net ([78.249.231.16]
helo=ip6-localhost) by witko.kerneis.info with esmtpsa
(TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from
<j...@pps.jussieu.fr>) id 1O65S3-0003in-Vk; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 19:17:04 +0200
Received: from jch by ip6-localhost with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from
<j...@pirx.pps.jussieu.fr>) id 1O65Rj-0003qU-47; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 19:16:43 +0200
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@pps.jussieu.fr>
To: debian-de...@lists.debian.org
Cc: "Marco d'Itri" <m...@linux.it>
Subject: bindv6only again
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 19:16:38 +0200
X-Gnus-Mail-Source: directory:~/email/gnus-in
Message-ID: <87tyqztpu1....@pirx.pps.jussieu.fr>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 78.249.231.16
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: j...@pps.jussieu.fr
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on witko.kerneis.info); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-Rc-Virus: 2007-09-13_01
X-Rc-Spam: 2008-11-04_01
Resent-Message-ID: <FZfwCvpM0RJ.A.WlF.i2H1LB@liszt>
Resent-From: debian-de...@lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List: <debian-de...@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/261352
X-Loop: debian-de...@lists.debian.org
List-Id: <debian-devel.lists.debian.org>
List-Post: <mailto:debian-de...@lists.debian.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe:
<mailto:debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:36:34 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 34
Xref: sauna.l.org mail.list-debian-devel:27
I've been reading through the archives in order to find out if there's
been any consensus on the controversial change to the default value of
net.ipv6.bindv6only -- and unless I've missed something, I'm under the
impression that people agree that the change was a mistake.
May I therefore most humbly suggest that Debian should revert the change
to the default (/etc/sysctl.d/bindv6only.conf), and thus become once
again compatible with what RFC 3493 says and most application developers
expect?
Juliusz
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2001/09/msg03513.html
