From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark Lillibridge Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Change in rmail-insert-mime-forwarded-message Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:40:42 -0800 Message-ID: <87622o20l1.fsf@foil.strangled.net> References: Reply-To: mdl@alum.mit.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1358902689 5653 80.91.229.3 (23 Jan 2013 00:58:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:58:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 23 01:58:27 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Txofb-0006hL-6A for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:58:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60596 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxofK-0001bY-42 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:58:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35052) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxofE-0001aa-DZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:58:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxofA-0002S8-4q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:58:04 -0500 Original-Received: from alum-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu ([18.7.68.19]:54430) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxofA-0002Kp-1I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:58:00 -0500 X-AuditID: 12074413-b7f786d0000008bb-f7-50ff31808a44 Original-Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.33]) by alum-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id E1.A9.02235.0813FF05; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:40:32 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from foil.strangled.net (c-67-188-235-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.235.212]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as mdl@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id r0N0eUbD005019 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:40:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Richard Stallman on Tue, 15 Jan 2013 19:04:15 -0500) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrJIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixO6iqNtg+D/A4MMNEYuXV44yWzxe8ITV YurHM2wWU5ZsZXdg8fj7/gOTR9s0swCmKG6bpMSSsuDM9Dx9uwTujE3vT7AVNLNXLH53ibGB 8QBrFyMHh4SAicTdH4ZdjJxAppjEhXvr2boYuTiEBC4zSjQ13YVyrjJJbLtziQWkik1AU2L6 s+/sILaIAL/Ew3W/GUFsZgFViZv9m8FqhAWsJHa+7ACLcwqUSpybtQ3MFhKQkli66ARYLwtQ /ffmj2A2r4C+xM5LH5ggbEGJkzOfsEDMlJA4+OIF8wRGvllIUrOQpBYwMq1ilEvMKc3VzU3M zClOTdYtTk7My0st0jXXy80s0UtNKd3ECAk64R2Mu07KHWIU4GBU4uHlevIvQIg1say4MvcQ oyQHk5Iob67+/wAhvqT8lMqMxOKM+KLSnNTiQ4wSHMxKIrzKG4HKeVMSK6tSi/JhUtIcLEri vGpL1P2EBNITS1KzU1MLUotgsjIcHEoSvMYGQEMFi1LTUyvSMnNKENJMHJwgw7mkRIpT81JS ixJLSzLiQREWXwyMMZAUD9BeA5B23uKCxFygKETrKUZdjl/LO54zCrHk5eelSonzqoIUCYAU ZZTmwa2ApZhXjOJAHwvzBoFU8QDTE9ykV0BLmICW8C7+DbKkJBEhJdXAOEVC6ZH3NAlpxm1f 9/FO+WVU5zk36rudtNF5AbEbM4WfBO/YabAwcxenoExY7ZOAVWcnTJn8T83JwCrFnlcz9EDl PLcpvJO3tVX25a9wf9NrsYtRVC9Z7sPnSrZdops6Tu3MZTR54lxy+Xqgn8MWp13z X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 18.7.68.19 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:156593 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > > I think reverting it in the release is right. > > 'f' in Rmail was dysfunctional before this fix; > > On the contrary, it was more functional. It could forward either the > mime-decoded message or the raw message, and did both jobs correctly. I believe it did both incorrectly. The raw message wasn't mbox-unescaped properly and the mime-decoded message was incorrectly placed in a RFC822 attachment (see previous email why this causes problems). I think Eli's real point, however, is that the need to use v then f to forward attachments is completely nonobvious to users so effectively Rmail doesn't support forwarding attachments pre fix in their eyes. Arguably, this could be addressed by a comment in the news file but if we are going to change the user interface anyways, let's do it only once. - Mark