Re: Bugs against emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com

[Stefan Monnier]

>> For what it's worth, I'd much rather prefer you don't touch reply-to
>> unless really necessary, so I wonder what is the reason for fiddling
>> with reply-to.
> Because a reply shouldn't go anywhere else but to the user who sent it
> and the bug itself.

You don't know that.  Only the person replying knows where that reply
should go.

Besides, I don't see why getting this result requires fiddling with the
reply-to header.  Can you give an example?
  
>> >> If "reply-to-all" sends to addresses to which the reply should
>> >> *never* be sent, then the error is not in the use of rely-to-all,
>> >> but in the headers of the email to which the user is replying.
>> 
>> > No, the error is in the use of reply-to-all which include To: in
>> > addition to addresses listed in Reply-To:. The only way to work
>> > around these sorts of idiocies is to totally strip the To: header
>> > entirely, which is fundamentally broken.
>> 
>> But in *no* circumstance is it right to reply to a Debbugs message
>> by sending the reply to bug-gnu-emacs or address@hidden or
>> emacs-pretest-bug or bug-submit-list, so clearly these addresses
>> should not appear in any of the headers that might be used by "reply
>> to all".

> That would require ripping out To: from the message, and setting it to
> something entirely bogus, as I said originally.

?? I don't understand.  It does mean removing those addresses from
pretty much all headers (not just To:), but I don't see why it should
require replacing it with something bogus, or why it should be
a big problem.  Can you restate the problem?


        Stefan