Re: Bugs against emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com

[Stefan Monnier]

>> I don't think that's right: "reply to all" should include address@hidden,
>> but not address@hidden, not bug-gnu-emacs, not emacs-pretest-bug, not
>> bug-submit-list, ... so the problem is in the headers of the
>> messages sent by Debbugs which doesn't strip some of those addresses
>> (tho it does seem to strip address@hidden properly).

> The Reply-To: is set to the From:/Reply-To: of the incoming message
> and the bug itself, no matter how the bug came in.

This is not related to what I wrote.  For what it's worth, I'd much
rather prefer you don't touch reply-to unless really necessary, so
I wonder what is the reason for fiddling with reply-to.
 
>> If "reply-to-all" sends to addresses to which the reply should
>> *never* be sent, then the error is not in the use of rely-to-all,
>> but in the headers of the email to which the user is replying.

> No, the error is in the use of reply-to-all which include To: in
> addition to addresses listed in Reply-To:. The only way to work around
> these sorts of idiocies is to totally strip the To: header entirely,
> which is fundamentally broken.

Reread what I wrote and think about it.  There is a useful distinction
between "reply to author" and "reply to all" (and a few others
in-between).  They should all behave slightly differently, and they all
make sense in some circumstances that depend on the intention of the guy
who replies.  But in *no* circumstance is it right to reply to a Debbugs
message by sending the reply to bug-gnu-emacs or address@hidden or
emacs-pretest-bug or bug-submit-list, so clearly these addresses should
not appear in any of the headers that might be used by "reply to all".

The error is in the email message's headers, not in the user's decision to
"reply to all".


        Stefan