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: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:36:06 +0900 Message-ID: <874ozidq89.fsf@xemacs.org> References: <20090128.002236.153267880.hanche@math.ntnu.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1233247386 16924 80.91.229.12 (29 Jan 2009 16:43:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:43:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 29 17:44:19 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 1LSZzw-0006Yz-Nj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:44:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46570 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LSZye-0006QN-Jf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:42:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LSZtA-0007GS-Qn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:37:12 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LSZt8-0007Em-UT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:37:11 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41226 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LSZt8-0007EY-Lv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:37:10 -0500 Original-Received: from mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:42281) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LSZt5-0001P6-Ba; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:37:07 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582271535AC; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:36:57 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2CD321A4AE4; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:36:07 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: 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:108364 Archived-At: Richard M Stallman writes: > 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] If the resender wishes to indicate interest in the conversation, they can do this in a number of ways, including adding themselves as a CC, specifying a Reply-To header, or forwarding the message (ie, encapsulating the original text in a new message with themselves in the From header). > and to all the other people you resent it to -- as well as to the > sender and recipients of the original message. > > Can anyone present an argument in support of what the RFC says? In my experience the most frequent users of Resent-* headers are not human agents, but daemons. I see no good to come of automatically adding their addresses to the reply-to list.