Re: RMAIL against Texinfo

[Kai Grossjohann <kai@emptydomain.de>]

"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@elta.co.il> writes:

>> From: Kai Grossjohann <kai@emptydomain.de>
>> Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 08:33:54 +0100
>> 
>> It seems that rmail-dont-reply-to-names is already anchored to the
>> beginning of an email address by the existing code?
>
> I think mail-strip-quoted-names removes <> and any other junk, so it
> sounds like prepending \` to "info-" would be better than \<.  Do you
> agree?

In that case, sure.  (I'm somewhat confused about what does the string
look like that's passed to rmail-dont-reply-to-names.)

>> >> Also, there is experience with nnmail-fancy-split in Gnus, which
>> >> automatically surrounds regexes with \\< and \\>.  Users are supposed
>> >> to say ".*foo.*" if they want to undo the effect of \\<...\\>.  But
>> >> after some years it turned out that this didn't always work, and now
>> >> there is additional code in the function supporting nnmail-split-fancy
>> >> which checks for the regex starting with ".*"...  I forgot what
>> >> exactly was the problem, though.
>> >
>> > Well, do you see any reason that this would be relevant to the case
>> > in point?  mail-utils.el doesn't surround regular expressions with \<
>> > and \>, it only does that with usernames, which aren't regexps.
>> 
>> Didn't you suggest to automagically add \\<...\\> to the regexp
>> constructed from rmail-dont-reply-to-names?
>
> Not to rmail-dont-reply-to-names, ti the user's login name and email
> address.  These two are literal strings, not regular expressions.

Oh, you're suggesting to change the default value of
rmail-dont-reply-to-names!  Okay.  That's something else entirely.
Sorry that I didn't get this before.  Good idea.

(The beginning of rmail-dont-reply-to looks strange: in the code (if
(null X) (if X foo bar) baz) it seems like foo will never be executed.
X is rmail-dont-reply-to-names.)

> As to rmail-dont-reply-to-names, I don't think we should surround them
> with anything; it's the user's job to do so when she customizes this
> option.

Right.  That's what I was trying to say.

Kai