From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: rmail-toggle-header problem Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:34:23 +0900 Message-ID: <87ljs05xhs.fsf@xemacs.org> References: <455812.70516.qm@web83203.mail.mud.yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1235183910 31913 80.91.229.12 (21 Feb 2009 02:38:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:38:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: pandyacus@sbcglobal.net Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 21 03:39:45 2009 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 1LahmK-0007B2-9C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 03:39:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:32952 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lahkz-00039m-Si for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:38:21 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lahkv-00039W-Ka for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:38:17 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lahkt-00039K-7y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:38:16 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34817 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lahkt-00039H-2Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:38:15 -0500 Original-Received: from mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:42714) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lahks-0005eQ-Ju for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:38:14 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038DC1535A8; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:38:08 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E64761A2657; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:34:23 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <455812.70516.qm@web83203.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12-devo-585 under 21.5 (beta28) "fuki" 83e35df20028+ XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/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:109269 Archived-At: Chetan Pandya writes: > Assuming it is [the case that users prefer only a small set of > headers to be yanked], would it not make more sense to make that as > the default? It is always possible to copy whatever headers that > are deemed necessary, but I suspect that isn't a very common > operation. That *is* the default and will continue to be the default under all schemes proposed so far, in the following sense. Users rarely look at the non-author headers. So yanking the displayed headers does what you want by "default". (If you want more control, use supercite.) The exception is when there is a problem with the *mail system*. In that case, they toggle the headers to full display, and in that case, they are quite likely to want to forward *all* headers to a mail admin. It is unlikely that somebody who has toggled full-display will fail to notice that, and if they do, recovery is just C-x k RET yes RET C-t R. (Not terribly short, but shorter and more accurate than trying clean headers by hand. BTW, forgive me if I got the keystrokes wrong, those are the VM equivalents but I think they're the same in Rmail.) Nobody has proposed that all headers be included all the time as far as I can see. Finally, copying all headers is tedious and error-prone, which is exactly what you don't want when you are composing a problem report. I conclude that unless you want to provide a separate facility to configure the yanked headers, yanking exactly the displayed headers is the best possible scheme.