Re: Change in rmail-reply

[Chetan Pandya <pandyacus@sbcglobal.net>]

From: Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org>


    > As for fowarding, that is no substitute, since the new header does not
     > include the sender or other recipients of the original message.  When
     > you want to exclude them, forwarding is suitable.  Otherwise, it isn't.

    That's an issue with your MUA, if that is a common use case for you.

  I do not follow.  What issue about the MUA are you raising?

     > Should we delete the rmail-resend command?

    No.  Better to rename it to something like rmail-bounce.

  "Bounce" in the context of mail usually indicates report that a
  message failed to reach a recipient.  Does this case have anything to
  do with such a failure?  If not, what's the reason to suggest
  using that word?

  It occurs to me that maybe there should be two resend commands:
  one which lets you edit the message and one which doesn't.
  The former would be new.  It could insert CC commands
  with the resend recipients, so you can either keep them or
   delete them.

I agree that bounce is also likely to be confusing, since the intent seems to use 
it on a message that has already bounced (non-delivery). 

Would it not make sense to use a different command when the message is edited?
Given all the confusion regarding resend, how about using it only in the case when 
only the recipient change (Resend-To and Resend-Cc) as per the RFC. 
When there is no change in the message content (such as reminders), it could still 
be sent as a new message, just like any other message that is edited and sent.

Chetan