From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB577429E32 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:01:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KozbRLBBbJfe for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:01:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDA90429E31 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:01:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by bkat8 with SMTP id t8so273326bka.26 for ; Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:01:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.156.135 with SMTP id x7mr1764451bkw.138.1325808104754; Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:01:44 -0800 (PST) Sender: awg@xvx.ca Received: by 10.205.33.73 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:01:44 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [208.77.198.202] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 17:01:44 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: XiGS5dj7HWrDPVkhGKek7QwikBs Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] notmuch reply bugfix & reply to sender only From: Adam Wolfe Gordon To: Jani Nikula Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:01:48 -0000 On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 13:25, Jani Nikula wrote: > Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the default > in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of --no-reply-all)? > > Bikeshedding topic #2: How about binding 'r' to reply to just the sender by > default, and making 'R' reply-all (instead of vice versa)? I like both these suggestions. This would bring the notmuch behavior in line with gmail, which is what I tend to expect. Mark Walters brings up a good point, that there is a question of what to do when the user tries to reply to their own email. When I do this, what I intend is to send another email to the last person I emailed in the thread, so I think the suggested heuristic of looking at other headers would work. But, maybe others have a different expectation in this case?