[Users] [Bug 3889] address and quoted message inconsistent in reply

[Dave Howorth]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 22:13:09 +0000
noreply at thewildbeast.co.uk wrote:

> https://www.thewildbeast.co.uk/claws-mail/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3889
> 
> --- Comment #9 from Paul <paul at claws-mail.org> ---
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Yes, you have to do that. Since the message view is the only
> > component that can convert message to text you won't get a message
> > to reply to otherwise.  
> 
> You are absolutely wrong here. Try it (without the aforementioned
> patch) and you will see. Enter a folder without automatically opening
> a message. Right-click any message and choose 'reply'.

FWIW, I just tried replying to another message from this list, using
the Reply entry on the context menu of that message, whilst viewing this
message. I get a compose window prepopulated with the quoted body of
this message, which is clearly incorrect.

I'm using openSUSE Leap 15.0 and claws 3.16.0 from their repository.

I don't know whether I'm seeing something broken in claws or in an
openSUSE patch which I don't know whether it is applied or not?

But the claws I'm running is definitely borked.

Oh, and if I try from another folder where I have multiple senders, it
is the sender of the message that is being viewed, not the sender of
the message I am trying to reply to, that is used. So at least it's
consisently incrorrect.


I would never dream of actually trying to reply to a message using the
context menu, or trying to reply to more than one message at once. So
for me, the simplest fix would simply be to remove Reply from the
context menu. Also removing the ability to select a different message
in the list from the one that is displayed would be sensible for my
simple-minded usage; what is the purpose of that ability?


> > To reply to a number of messages quoting completely unrelated
> > message? No, thanks.  
> 
> No. To reply to a number of messsages, each quoting the respective
> message you are replying to, each being addressed to the sender of
> the respective message. Try it (without the aforementioned patch) and
> you will see.
> 
> > AFAICT it does not break anything what was not broken to start
> > with.  
> 
> Keep trying and you will see.