From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Glenn Morris Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Change in rmail-reply Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:39:39 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1233006737 30551 80.91.229.12 (26 Jan 2009 21:52:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:52:17 +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 Mon Jan 26 22:53:30 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 1LRZOJ-0003OP-7n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:53:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49959 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LRZMy-0004Ks-4X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:51:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LRXeS-0004rQ-Pf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:01:45 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LRXeP-0004nT-Dc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:01:41 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57003 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LRXeN-0004nD-Ku for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:01:39 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:32896) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LRXeM-0003er-R9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:01:38 -0500 Original-Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1LRVQx-0002gt-5j; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:39:39 -0500 X-Spook: undercover embassy sniper CDC NORAD Putin Leuken-Baden X-Ran: #F6 (Richard M. Stallman's message of "Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:30:58 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) 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:108259 Archived-At: Richard M Stallman wrote: > + * mail/rmail.el (rmail-reply): Don't include Resent-To and Resent-Cc in > + replies. (Bug#512) > > Why do you think this change is correct in general? > It gives the desired results in this particular case, > but in general it seems to be wrong. This was discussed: emacs-devel Sun, 29 June 2008 Re: postmaster@bogus.example.com: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed From: Sven Joachim (the actual subject address is hidden in the web archive) http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2008-06/msg01960.html [my emphasis below] It was in the "Resent-To" field, and rmail-reply includes that in the list of addresses for the reply. That does not seem to comply to RFC 2822 which states: Resent fields are used to identify a message as having been reintroduced into the transport system by a user. The purpose of using resent fields is to have the message appear to the final recipient as if it were sent directly by the original sender, with all of the original fields remaining the same. Each set of resent fields correspond to a particular resending event. That is, if a message is resent multiple times, each set of resent fields gives identifying information for each individual time. Resent fields are strictly informational. They MUST NOT be used in the normal ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ processing of replies or other such automatic actions on messages. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think Rmail should be fixed to not send replies to Resent-* addresses. [...] it needs to be updated: the RFC is pretty clear.