From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Christopher Pinon Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Rmail: 'reply' vs 'reply-all'? Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:48:20 +0100 Message-ID: <87poivuuy3.fsf@secondfloor.xyz> References: <87vaspejvr.fsf@robertthorpeconsulting.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1486400378 25898 195.159.176.226 (6 Feb 2017 16:59:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:59:38 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 06 17:59:33 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1camdR-0005oU-4t for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:59:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49479 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1camTM-0001hP-62 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:49:00 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34336) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1camSq-0001h8-Bb for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:48:29 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1camSp-0004Gx-BY for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:48:28 -0500 Original-Received: from [2605:8900:1000:1001:b:0:118:9] (port=65515 helo=mail.secondfloor.xyz) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1camSp-0004CV-4w for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:48:27 -0500 Original-Received: by mail.secondfloor.xyz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 475C360099; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:48:20 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=secondfloor.xyz; s=secondfloor; t=1486399700; bh=ZEp6eAvtkJ0OPGYGxlnQtbtfIO4sfoXBO36BM92mkMo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Date; b=SlqLcnGe5Uke6+IcajroCLZqhic/rygfTHgwdPDNVGU/dSsRmDb3/WfWjTJZpMYUo aNswkXJVox6Z0BKExsTJ1sodpuPiUTcgZTvtviPtJmM9Q8AUrgkgDhOqtllUePaklT WvKld9kjXe9BCjjfThqwMD2JU+lef9nXPkqdM4NU= In-Reply-To: <87vaspejvr.fsf@robertthorpeconsulting.com> (message from Robert Thorpe on Sat, 04 Feb 2017 21:17:12 +0000) X-Mailer: Rmail; GNU Emacs 25.1 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2605:8900:1000:1001:b:0:118:9 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:112261 Archived-At: Robert Thorpe writes: > Christopher Pinon writes: > ... >> During my private tests, I used three other email addresses that I have: >> myusername AT domain1, myusername AT domain2, and myusername AT >> domain3. These are different addresses (because different domains), but >> 'myusername' is the same in each case. What I found is that 'r' in Rmail >> did not add these addresses to "CC" or "To", which is what puzzled me. >> >> As soon as I used an address of the form anotherusername AT domain in >> "CC" or "To", 'r' in Rmail behaved as expected (i.e., as according to >> the manual) and added it to "CC" or "To". >> >> In sum, 'r' in Rmail appears to treat the addresses myusername AT >> domain1, myusername AT domain2, and myusername AT domain3 as the same >> address, which is a bit unfortunate. In practice, it's not likely to be >> a significant issue (it was an artifact of my private tests), but it >> nevertheless seems a little odd for 'r' in Rmail to treat such addresses >> as the same. > > This is an obscure case. On the other hand, it should work. So, this > looks like a bug to me. I didn't want to call it a bug, but I would agree. :-) > I have never encountered this problem in practice when using Rmail though. I imagine that Rmail has behaved like this for a long time now, but it's probably rarely the case that one would want to reply-all to addresses username AT domain1, username AT domain2, etc., where username is the same in each case. C.