From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Don Armstrong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Change in rmail-reply Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:44:21 -0800 Message-ID: <20090127064421.GZ4175@volo.donarmstrong.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1233038680 9970 80.91.229.12 (27 Jan 2009 06:44:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:44:40 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 27 07:45:52 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 1LRhhk-0003gi-Vi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 07:45:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41754 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LRhgT-0004qn-4b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:44:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LRhgK-0004ps-JU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:44:20 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LRhgI-0004pg-FQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:44:19 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37983 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LRhgI-0004pd-91 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:44:18 -0500 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:40286) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LRhgH-0008WU-Pl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:44:18 -0500 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (rzlab.ucr.edu [127.0.0.1]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n0R6iGf0011938 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:44:16 -0800 Original-Received: (from remotemail@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n0R6iGZi011937 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:44:16 -0800 Original-Received: (nullmailer pid 24436 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:44:21 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:108290 Archived-At: On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Richard M Stallman wrote: > The RFC is clear, but it seems to be clearly wrong. If John Doe > sends a message to you, and you resend it to me, and I do "reply to > all", it seems clear that my reply should by default go to you. Resent-To: shouldn't be set in such a case; that's forwarding, and should end up with entirely new From/To headers. > And if you resent it to emacs-devel as well as to me, it seems clear > that "reply to all" should include emacs-devel by default. > > Can anyone present an argument in support of what the RFC says? Resent-To: fields are only there to indicate when a message has been reinserted into the mail delivery chain by someone. Don Armstrong -- A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election. -- Bill Vaughan http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu