Re: Change in rmail-reply

[Glenn Morris]

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: address@hidden: 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.