Re: [abraham@dina.kvl.dk: Re: CC (was: Re: kill ring menu)]

[Paul Michael Reilly <pmr@pajato.com>]

 > Could you implement this too?
 > 
 > ------- Start of forwarded message -------
 > X-Authentication-Warning: zuse.dina.kvl.dk: abraham set sender to abraham@dina.kvl.dk using -f
 > To: emacs-devel@gnu.org
 > Subject: Re: CC (was: Re: kill ring menu)
 > Organization: The Church of Emacs
 > From: Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk>
 > In-Reply-To: <rj7kmq7tbu.fsf_-_@zuse.dina.kvl.dk> (Per Abrahamsen's message
 >  of "Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:22:13 +0200")
 > Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
 > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:14:36 +0200
 > 
 > Answers to multiple people:
 > 
 > - - It is Mail-Followup-To, without an "s".
 > 
 > - - It was invented by Dan Bernstein, and documented in
 >   < http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html >
 > 
 > - - It is supported in Gnus from the Oort line 
 >   (i.e. what will become the next version).
 > 
 > - - Mail-Copies-To was invented by Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen for Gnus for
 >   both mail and news, and has been adopted by a large number of other
 >   news clients, but no other mail clients as far as I know.  
...
 > Here is the specification from USEFOR (the RFC 1036 replacement):
 >
 >   < http://www.mibsoftware.com/userkt/usefor/05/0060.htm >

While this is a News feature from what I can discern, I will implement
it in the Rmail reply command with the following semantics:

If either a Mail-Followup-To or Mail-Copies-To header exists in the
message being replied to AND the user has not edited the default
reply-to list at mail-send time, then the followup header(s) will be
processed and any mailboxes indicated by the header(s) will be
included in the reply.  "never" and "nobody" will be treated as
synonymous, as will "always" and "poster".

If the User edits the reply-to list, then one could argue that it is
the wish of the replier to ignore the wishes of the poster.  One
could also argue that the intent of the original poster should be
heeded but I know that if I prune a reply-to list and my mail agent
chose to send the message to someone(s) I did not explicitly bless, I
would be mightily pissed.

Would anyone care to make a case for adding custom variable support to
tailor the behavior further?  I'm inclined not to do so if only to
keep the feature simple.

Other comments?

-pmr