[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Change in rmail-reply

From: Richard M Stallman
Subject: Re: Change in rmail-reply
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:32:18 -0500

       Note: Reintroducing a message into the transport system and using
       resent fields is a different operation from "forwarding".
       "Forwarding" has two meanings: One sense of forwarding is that a mail
       reading program can be told by a user to forward a copy of a message
       to another person, making the forwarded message the body of the new
       message.  A forwarded message in this sense does not appear to have
       come from the original sender, but is an entirely new message from
       the forwarder of the message.

Now I understand how these terms are being used.  Forwarding and
resending do similar jobs, but package the message differently.

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 and to all the
other people you resent it to -- as well as to the sender and recipients
of the original message.

Can anyone present an argument in support of what the RFC says?

Someone else wrote:

    The distinction is the difference between "I'd like you to see this
    mail" and "this mail was misdirected to me". [If you've used mutt,
    it's the difference between forward and bounce.]

I can see why, in the misdirected case, you would prefer to use resend.
I have not seen any statement previously that resend is only intended
for that case.  Is this the stated purpose of resend?

But if that is the motive for using resend, it seems to support
the conclusion that replies should go to the other people
to whom you resent the message.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]