Re: Change in rmail-reply

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Chetan Pandya writes:
 > Jason Rumney <address@hidden> wrote:
 > > Chetan Pandya wrote:
 > 
 > >> 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,

That is in fact the intent of the Resent-* headers.  Personally, I
like the intuition that "the RESEND command uses RESENT-* headers to
avoid looking like a FORWARD".

Obviously you and Richard have a different intuition, based on the
fact that you don't use resend for its designed purpose, but rather
because it saves keystrokes compared to forward (in his case, anyway).

 > Like other commands that may be confusing to users, it could be
 > disabled by default, unless explicitly enabled by the user.

I think it would be better to enhance the forward command (or split it
into "forward" and "quick-forward") so that there is less temptation
to use the resend command as a low- effort forward.  You could remove
the key-binding for resend; that should be sufficient discouragement.

 > Irrespective of what is done on the send side, it might make sense
 > to show resent-from, especially if it is different from from field.

Resent-From is *almost always* different from From.  If it is expected
to be of interest to the recipient, then the sender should not be
using resend in the first place; they should use forward.  On the
downside of your suggestion, do you really want to see that
<address@hidden> resent the post for every
single post to emacs-devel that you receive?  That's what your
suggestion would cause.