From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Harald Hanche-Olsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs Subject: Re: 23.0.60; Emacs should survive a lost X connection Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:55:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <20080210.175532.194353373.hanche@math.ntnu.no> References: <8763wxdw7f.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <20080210.103408.20617153.hanche@math.ntnu.no> <87zlu9c5kj.fsf@catnip.gol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1202662553 2283 80.91.229.12 (10 Feb 2008 16:55:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:55:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org To: miles@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 10 17:56:15 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JOFTR-0005yp-Bs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:56:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JOFSy-0007Nq-C5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:55:44 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JOFSv-0007Me-2k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:55:41 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JOFSu-0007M4-GE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:55:40 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JOFSu-0007Lk-BN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:55:40 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JOFSu-0008Hn-D2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:55:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166] helo=mx10.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JOFSt-00042r-Oq for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:55:39 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JOFSq-0008Gh-Hh for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:55:39 -0500 Original-Received: from abel.math.ntnu.no ([129.241.15.50]) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JOFSq-0008GH-29 for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:55:36 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 5673 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2008 16:55:33 -0000 Original-Received: from euler1.math.ntnu.no (HELO localhost) (hanche@129.241.15.151) by abel.math.ntnu.no with ESMTPA; 10 Feb 2008 16:55:33 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87zlu9c5kj.fsf@catnip.gol.com> X-URL: http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/ X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2.51 on Emacs 23.0.0 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 8 (1) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:88633 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:20986 Archived-At: + Miles Bader : > Harald Hanche-Olsen writes: > > (I use mew, which does not seem to have a concept of followup, just > > reply.) > > That's extremely odd for a capable MUA, as such a command is > indispensable for reading mailing lists. Are you sure it doesn't have > it under a different name ("wide reply", "reply to ...", etc)? Ah, you're right. The default action is the wide reply, while with C-u it replies to sender only. In either case, it treats the Reply-To header as an extra address to send the reply to. I am the one guilty of changing this behaviour (so long ago I had forgotten about it). I probably did so from a misunderstanding of what the reply-to field means, as a rather strong indication that replies are to be sent to the indicated address only. But RFC 2822 seems to say otherwise. Time to revert my mew setup to the default, then. > Guilt, n. The condition of one who is known to have committed an > indiscretion, as distinguished from the state of him who has covered > his tracks. How appropriate. 8-) - Harald