Re: possible bug in rmail-reply command

Article View: gnu.emacs.bug

Article #712

#712

From: Barry Margolin
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:08

15 lines
1158 bytes

In article <9208180902.AA00911@naja.gr.osf.org> jose@gr.osf.ORG writes:
>I found a possible bug in the rmail-reply command: when you reply, the
>Re: field is not inserted in the subject field. Besides, if the
>subject already contains the Re: field, it gets deleted.

I believe this is intentional.  Some of us don't believe that the "Re:" is
necessary.  If you sort messages by subject, this keeps the original and
its replies together.  The In-Reply-To field is enough to indicate that a
message is a reply; why do you feel "Re:" is also necessary?

-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

Technical Details

Message-ID: <16u9onINNdip@early-bird.think.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!think.com!barmar

References: <9208180902.AA00911@naja.gr.osf.org>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.bug
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!think.com!barmar
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Subject: Re: possible bug in rmail-reply command
Message-ID: <16u9onINNdip@early-bird.think.com>
Sender: gnulists@ai.mit.edu
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
References: <9208180902.AA00911@naja.gr.osf.org>
Distribution: gnu
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:08:55 GMT
Approved: bug-gnu-emacs@prep.ai.mit.edu
Lines: 15

Reply to Parent Message