Re: Make `r` and `F` behave as `S L` when replying to a message from a mailing list

[Denis Bitouzé]

Le 07/11/14 à 00h45, Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> a écrit :

> Denis Bitouzé <dbitouze@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>
>> I've just been told that when I reply (`r` or `F`)
>> to a message from a mailing list, the `To` is the
>> original message sender's address instead of the
>> mailing list address, the latter being in the `Cc`
>> field.
>>
>> It appears that it should be enough to use `S L` to
>> get the expected behavior (the mailing list address in
>> the `To` field, nothing in `Cc`), but I'd like a
>> unique keybinding for all the "reply" actions.
>>
>> Hence my question: how could I make `r` and `F` behave
>> as `S L` when replying to a message from a mailing
>> list?
>
> I just read this on gnu.emacs.gnus - where it was
> quoted

Quoted?

> (although that message was a bit confusing as well :)

Did I something wrong? :)

>  - did you see it?
>
> You are using Gnus, so why not use the mailing lists
> as newsgroups?

See below.

> Or do you use mailing lists that aren't available as
> newsgroups, and then mail-split them to sort-of
> newsgroups?

Indeed: I receive them in my main INBOX.

> But it doesn't really matter - if you found that `S L'
> works (`S L' is
> `gnus-summary-reply-to-list-with-original'), why don't
> you just bind it to a shorter keystroke?

Indeed, but I'd like a single keybinding for all the "reply" actions.

> Or do you want it to be exactly `r' and `F', but have
> them work transparently based on "is it a private
> mail, or is it a listbot mail" DWIM-style?

Exactly! :)

> That would have to involve extracting this from the
> headers somehow if Gnus isn't capable to do this
> already.

As answered to Damien, a further check at the list's headers puzzled me:
`Reply-To:` is the list address, not the sender's one. Why Gnus doesn't
take it into account when I reply with `r` or `F`?

> In either case, isn't it a lot of work for such a small gain?

I'm so lazy that I love work hard in order to be able to be (lazy) ;)

> Why don't use `S L',

Because I'm likely to forget to use this different keybinding when
appropriate.

> or rebind it to a single key?

Okay, but I'd like it to be one the "usual" ones: `r` or `F`.
-- 
Denis