From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jason Rumney Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Change in rmail-reply Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:31:35 +0800 Message-ID: <4983C617.4090107@gnu.org> References: <87myd9cj98.fsf@xemacs.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1233372753 4222 80.91.229.12 (31 Jan 2009 03:32:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:32:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Stephen J. Turnbull" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 31 04:33:47 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 1LT6c3-00079t-2k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 04:33:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52290 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LT6ak-0004Ia-O1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:32:22 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LT6af-0004IC-QV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:32:17 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LT6ad-0004Hh-Cc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:32:16 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42355 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LT6ad-0004He-4d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:32:15 -0500 Original-Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.142.185]:59709) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LT6ab-0000TC-UA; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:32:14 -0500 Original-Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id u5so225420tia.10 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:32:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=P8cCUUtjcI0N2mRIW+t7VuadP0AO/QIzekWggukO5Zo=; b=jIBJDJzigZzpsL4WVKXe2D3XGqCBO3d0J53IHzf8lqXy8ExIjLpsAR89aer8863sYt xiglCipoUqGD58ImWOrPytPjrkeFODOluVzOGiFokjqXjixNLAZAIFz4M2dYtDdZW11E X5lHLTeLz5sDNIoA5HPeUBfHfFwDiOk4ksPZI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=T4fWHaGmeorSzP+ZfqOmWXDTDzHD5wx6K9bIB/GwqU29qcBFTffS5PRaYeLXVsUOFh fqWPG4PV+SJ09BxXt5Pd9CC87v1LGMxCCWKFBWqanI6X9Q9lERSUOGvRJzhZFyUMojNJ yYwiGf8ckYHwToBOBFqykOAMrtnijiByDTroQ= Original-Received: by 10.110.61.16 with SMTP id j16mr2082782tia.10.1233372732113; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:32:12 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from ?192.168.249.26? ([118.101.26.137]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b4sm2305971tic.2.2009.01.30.19.32.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:32:11 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:108439 Archived-At: Richard M Stallman wrote: > 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. > If you want to edit the message and Cc the original recipents, then rmail-reply, adding the extra recipients to the To or Cc would be more appropriate. If you don't want to Cc the original recipients, then forward may be more appropriate, possibly with a Reply-To line that includes the original recipents and sender (perhaps that is a new function that could be provided). Resend should be limited to non-edited messages only - if the message is edited, then it comes from you, not the original sender.