On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:55:53 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 27 2012, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote: >> > Since the beginning of time, the emacs interface provided a keybinding >> > of 'r' to reply to a message, (and originally, all recipients). >> > >> > Then, before release 0.12 the emacs interface acquired a new >> > reply-to-sender only feature. In commit >> > f02b475fa781bb5df3358c73213e7633a99f016e the new feature was put onto >> > the original keybinding, (and reply-to-all was moved to 'R'). >> > >> > This restores the original keybinding and uses the new keybinding for >> > the new feature. > > My bias is probably apparent in that I pushed the original patch... > > I think the there is potential for unfortunate mistakes with either set > of bindings. On the one hand sending replies to unintended people can be > very embarrassing. On the other hand, forgetting to reply to the group > can also be problematic. The latter is easier to correct, _if_ it is > detected. > > When we discussed this earlier, there were people who supported both > options as default. I broke the tie based on my experience with other > mailers, and the fact that apparently I worry more about sending things > to too many people than to too few. Obviously Carl would have chosen > differently. > > It would be easy enough to add a customization variable to swap the > outcomes of r and R; iirc this is what wanderlust (or maybe VM) does. It > seems that would not really make people any happier, since the complaint > is not that it is hard to do the keybindings, but that the bindings > changed. > > I do worry that by changing back, we annoy a whole new set of > people. I'm not worried for myself; I can add the equivalent keybindings > to my .emacs. I do (hypothetically) sympathize with people who just got > used to the new behaviour and are surprised again. Hi I agree with David on all the above and I do think that the fact that most other mail user agents (in my experience) default to reply to sender is a point in favour of the status quo. Of course, it is not my project so I am happy to go along with whatever choice is made. On a practical note to help with Daniel's point that it is easier to remove recipients than add them: would it be possible to add a key command to message mode to add the other addresses? Or put the other addresses into the kill ring so they could be pasted into a cc line? Best wishes Mark