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 13:57:35 +0900 Message-ID: <87ab98cbsw.fsf@xemacs.org> 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 1233377946 12825 80.91.229.12 (31 Jan 2009 04:59:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 04:59:06 +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 Sat Jan 31 06:00:19 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 1LT7xk-0005n1-Tv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:00:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42261 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LT7wS-0002IV-FF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:58:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LT7wO-0002Gl-Ci for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:58:48 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LT7wL-0002G1-43 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:58:47 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55527 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LT7wL-0002Fy-10 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:58:45 -0500 Original-Received: from mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:37712) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LT7wH-00033B-Rq; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:58:42 -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 C3C15820E; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:58:37 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9724F1A2992; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:57:35 +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:108442 Archived-At: Richard M Stallman writes: > > 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? The need for a rmail-resend variant which allows editing the headers, as you describe below. Personally, I would tend to add the feature to the forward command instead, but thats a matter of style, not substance. > > 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? The analogy is that physically, something that bounces doesn't interact with the thing in bounced off of; it simply changes direction, leaving both the bouncer and the bouncee otherwise unchanged. The failed-mail report originally was a special case of this, with just enough additional information to identify it clearly as a resend for the purpose of identifying an error. Thus it is called a "bounce". The semantics have changed, but the name stuck. > 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. As long as there is no parsing of Resent-* headers for addresses to add to the recipient list, that would be fine. Note that the semantics of mail for this purpose are still problematic. The original recipients may never know that the conversation has been broadened in this way if you don't send the forward (with the new headers) to them, too. On the other hand, they might not care, and be annoyed by the duplication. It's not a big hairy deal, of course, but these nuances apparently matter somewhat to you. To the extent that they do, you may wish to advocate changing the channels where you want to use these features to use more appropriate technology (usenet, web forum, etc).