Re: Change in rmail-reply

[Richard M Stallman]

     > 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]

    If the resender wishes to indicate interest in the conversation, they
    can do this in a number of ways, including adding themselves as a CC,
    specifying a Reply-To header, or forwarding the message (ie,
    encapsulating the original text in a new message with themselves in
    the From header).

I realize now that the resender is not a real issue.  He is most
likely one of the recipients of the original message, or reached via
them, so sending a response there will reach him.

The real issue is the other people to whom the message was resent.
If he resends the message to address@hidden and address@hidden,
and I reply, shouldn't my reply go to you?

Adding the other recipients to the CC list may be difficult.  With
rmail-resend, the user does not edit the message.  The idea is that
all he needs to do is specify where to resend to, in the minibuffer,
and then it goes there.  Isn't that what resending is for?

As for fowarding, that is no substitute, since the new header does not
include the sender or other recipients of the original message.  When
you want to exclude them, forwarding is suitable.  Otherwise, it isn't.

If resending as a feature is designed for demons to send to
intermediate addresses, and not for humans to use, what does that
imply about rmail-resend?

Should we delete the rmail-resend command?  Make it warn "This command
has counterintuitive results, since replies won't go to the other
recipients you resend to"?  Make it add those recipients to the CC
list as well as putting them in Resent-to?