Re: Differences between mail-mode and message-mode

[Reiner Steib]

On Wed, Jul 22 2009, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Reiner Steib writes:
>
>  > Obviously the key bindings cannot be resolved without a change for
>  > either mail-mode or message-mode users.  Maybe set the bindings
>  > depending on some compatibility variable?
>
> How about the presence of Newsgroups?

>  > >  . In mail-mode C-c C-f C-f moves to FCC; in message-mode C-c C-f C-f
>  > >    moves to Followup-To, and C-c C-f C-w moves to FCC.
>
> Followup-To is rarely useful in a mail message.

A message-mode buffer can be news, mail or both.  E.g. when adding Cc
to a news posting, the buffer also becomes a mail buffer (see
`message-news-p' and `message-mail-p').  I think modifying key
bindings depending on `message-news-p'/`message-mail-p' would be
confusing.

>  > >  . In mail-mode C-c C-f C-a moves to Mail-Reply-To; in message-mode
> There is no Mail-Reply-To header in the mail standards AFAIK.
>  > >  . In mail-mode C-c C-f C-l moves to Mail-Followup-To; in message-mode
>  > >    C-c C-f C-m moves to Mail-Followup-To and C-c C-f C-l is undefined
> There is no Mail-Followup-To header in the mail standards AFAIK,
> although there is a plausible argument that it is useful for mailing
> lists.

AFAIK, both aren't in any RFC.  But at least Mail-Followup-To is quite
useful (and also supported by other MUA like mutt).

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/