From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Change in rmail-reply Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:32:07 +0900 Message-ID: <874ozgc7fc.fsf@xemacs.org> References: <87myd9cj98.fsf@xemacs.org> <28265.24804.qm@web83202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <597051.6409.qm@web83201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4983C273.4060201@gnu.org> <785436.96522.qm@web83207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1233383619 22723 80.91.229.12 (31 Jan 2009 06:33:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:33:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, Jason Rumney To: Chetan Pandya Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 31 07:34:53 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 1LT9RI-0004bq-3H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:34:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34812 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LT9Pz-0003gC-Em for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:33:27 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LT9Pr-0003g7-Aw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:33:19 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LT9Pq-0003fh-3w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:33:18 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43520 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LT9Pp-0003fM-VL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:33:18 -0500 Original-Received: from mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:37867) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LT9Pk-0002dT-Vl; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:33:13 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12FD2820E; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:33:11 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5EC771A2992; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:32:08 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <785436.96522.qm@web83207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12-devo-585 under 21.5 (beta28) "fuki" 83e35df20028+ XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:108444 Archived-At: Chetan Pandya writes: > Jason Rumney wrote: > > Chetan Pandya wrote: > > >> One thing I don't like about this command is the potential for > >> misuse - unless this is one of the intended uses. > >> The problem is that the recipient of the message may have no > >> idea that the message is not really received from what it claims > >> to be, That is in fact the intent of the Resent-* headers. Personally, I like the intuition that "the RESEND command uses RESENT-* headers to avoid looking like a FORWARD". Obviously you and Richard have a different intuition, based on the fact that you don't use resend for its designed purpose, but rather because it saves keystrokes compared to forward (in his case, anyway). > Like other commands that may be confusing to users, it could be > disabled by default, unless explicitly enabled by the user. I think it would be better to enhance the forward command (or split it into "forward" and "quick-forward") so that there is less temptation to use the resend command as a low- effort forward. You could remove the key-binding for resend; that should be sufficient discouragement. > Irrespective of what is done on the send side, it might make sense > to show resent-from, especially if it is different from from field. Resent-From is *almost always* different from From. If it is expected to be of interest to the recipient, then the sender should not be using resend in the first place; they should use forward. On the downside of your suggestion, do you really want to see that resent the post for every single post to emacs-devel that you receive? That's what your suggestion would cause.