From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Change in rmail-reply
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:10:44 -0500
Message-ID: <E1LRh9o-0005zZ-Oz@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <subptuvuec.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1233036768 6131 80.91.229.12 (27 Jan 2009 06:12:48 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:12:48 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
To: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 27 07:14:01 2009
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
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 1LRhCv-0006ue-EY
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 07:13:58 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35599 helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LRhBa-0001d0-Iv
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:12:34 -0500
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LRhBS-0001cv-Pg
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:12:26 -0500
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LRhBR-0001cj-17
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:12:26 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41221 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LRhBQ-0001cg-Qy
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:12:24 -0500
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:52160)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <rms@gnu.org>) id 1LRhBQ-000536-Lp
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:12:24 -0500
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67)
	(envelope-from <rms@gnu.org>)
	id 1LRh9o-0005zZ-Oz; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:10:45 -0500
In-reply-to: <subptuvuec.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (message from Glenn Morris on
	Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:39:39 -0500)
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." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=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:108289
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/108289>

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.

And if you resent it to emacs-devel as well as to me, it seems clear
that "reply to all" should include emacs-devel by default.

Can anyone present an argument in support of what the RFC says?