[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Change in rmail-reply
From: |
Chetan Pandya |
Subject: |
Re: Change in rmail-reply |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:01:33 -0800 (PST) |
One thing I don't like about this command is the potential for misuse - unless
this is one of the intended uses.
The problem is that the recipient of the message may have no idea that the
message is not really received
from what it claims to be, if the recipient MUA does not look at the resend
headers. This might look like
deception. Granted it is already possible to do it by other means, but the
question is whether it should be
made easier to do so.
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, (continued)
- 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
- Re: Change in rmail-reply,
Chetan Pandya <=
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Jason Rumney, 2009/01/30
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Chetan Pandya, 2009/01/30
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2009/01/31
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Chetan Pandya, 2009/01/31
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Jason Rumney, 2009/01/30
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Jason Rumney, 2009/01/30
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2009/01/30
- Re: Change in rmail-reply, Don Armstrong, 2009/01/27