From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard M Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Change in rmail-reply Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:05:20 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87myd9cj98.fsf@xemacs.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 1233356906 2278 80.91.229.12 (30 Jan 2009 23:08:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:08:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 31 00:09:40 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 1LT2UM-0006DE-WF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:09:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55791 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LT2T4-0000gK-Ml for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:08:10 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LT2S0-00007r-8o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:07:04 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LT2Rz-00006d-BT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:07:03 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36528 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LT2Rz-00006M-6Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:07:03 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:47860) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LT2Ry-0001Bn-QR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:07:02 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1LT2QK-0006el-65; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:05:20 -0500 In-reply-to: <87myd9cj98.fsf@xemacs.org> (stephen@xemacs.org) 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:108424 Archived-At: > 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? > 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? 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.