Re: Changes for emacs 28

[Robert Pluim]

>>>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 17:32:35 +0300, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> said:

    >> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com>
    >> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 14:52:49 +0200
    >> Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>, Drew Adams 
<drew.adams@oracle.com>,
    >> Emacs developers <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
    >> 
    Gregory> Indeed.  I know this, but I don't know why this is the case (*).  I
    Gregory> used to explicitly set Reply-To to emacs-devel@gnu.org in my MUA, 
but
    Gregory> Eli asked me to stop to do this.
    >> 
    >> I think in that case rmail replies only to emacs-devel@, which means
    >> Eli has to add back the other recipients. Eli, do we need a "reply to
    >> 'From+To+CC+Reply-To'" feature in rmail? ("wide reply" in Gnus parlance).

    Eli> I don't think I understand what that means (never used Gnus, sorry),
    Eli> and don't remember the details of the issue.  But in general, why
    Eli> would someone need to set Reply-To to the list address when replying
    Eli> to a message from the list?  It should be automatic in any sensible
    Eli> MUA, no?

They wouldnʼt, but apparently Mailman sets 'Reply-To: ghe@sdf.org' on
Gregory's behalf, which then causes Outlook to respond only to him.

In Gnus, when I say 'wide reply', it hoovers up 'From,To,CC,Reply-To',
so that doesnʼt bother me. I donʼt know what rmail does, hence my
question.

Maybe Drew needs a different MUA? :-)

Robert