[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Change in rmail-reply
From: |
Don Armstrong |
Subject: |
Re: Change in rmail-reply |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:44:21 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Richard M Stallman wrote:
> 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.
Resent-To: shouldn't be set in such a case; that's forwarding, and
should end up with entirely new From/To headers.
> 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?
Resent-To: fields are only there to indicate when a message has been
reinserted into the mail delivery chain by someone.
Don Armstrong
--
A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but
won't cross the street to vote in a national election.
-- Bill Vaughan
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
- Change in rmail-reply, Richard M Stallman, 2009/01/26
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Glenn Morris, 2009/01/26
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Richard M Stallman, 2009/01/27
- Re: Change in rmail-reply,
Don Armstrong <=
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Stefan Monnier, 2009/01/27
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Richard M Stallman, 2009/01/27
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Harald Hanche-Olsen, 2009/01/27
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Richard M Stallman, 2009/01/29
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Stefan Monnier, 2009/01/29
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2009/01/29
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Richard M Stallman, 2009/01/30
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2009/01/30
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Richard M Stallman, 2009/01/30
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Chetan Pandya, 2009/01/30