From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chetan Pandya Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Change in rmail-reply Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:50:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <28265.24804.qm@web83202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <87myd9cj98.fsf@xemacs.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1233363066 17364 80.91.229.12 (31 Jan 2009 00:51:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:51:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org, "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 31 01:52:18 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 1LT45m-0007jg-6J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:52:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42626 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LT44S-00027Y-RQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:50:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LT44N-00027J-Sx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:50:47 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LT44J-000277-DI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:50:46 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39818 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LT44J-000274-9d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:50:43 -0500 Original-Received: from web83202.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([216.252.101.46]:32222) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LT44F-0005mA-9G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:50:41 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 24859 invoked by uid 60001); 31 Jan 2009 00:50:23 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=U2bKSd6wAwWct2M3/DgQatPQAPFMRM3aWxLBwWbnkFqxtEA/cWVaCYjtgxHxDSnUkxTyzLqci89OBMVREBD4uhfZ24MvYg0F3q8sPbJD2MOi0sHaOjJPLfGgKAmonazEXQq8ou42UX71vhmcV0yRyXibuJyxsDl6pUxE0HE3Hv4=; X-YMail-OSG: d3sOhVcVM1lOVMyWTQHbN7MNFnAz9C7NOGMlGQBhkpwnWGiPmwshLXAmOJQe7YqPLUZjAY4CZrlH.SI.XQBuiXdMewYtXN2OTssG8Y0g4dT_wLXVBoy96Nn1NE.67C9tj6LAQL_sF9ytUcaTozecepvDvAOnowzMi_SIizUsP2qAySuBydyc4Hq.oujoR.iW7wtm.NZuRjyU Original-Received: from [75.36.178.29] by web83202.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:50:22 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1155.45 YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 6.x (1) 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:108425 Archived-At: From: Richard M Stallman > 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