From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/87965 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Uwe Brauer Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: warn about a BCC field Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 00:31:33 +0200 Message-ID: <87muy691ru.fsf@mat.ucm.es> References: <87d1eaa0q2.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <87d0z51px0.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <87vacualzc.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <87k1tasuz9.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <87lgdqakkw.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <87woxayfj8.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1523658605 24745 195.159.176.226 (13 Apr 2018 22:30:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 22:30:05 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+m36179@lists.math.uh.edu Sat Apr 14 00:30:01 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from mxfilter-048035.atla03.us.yomura.com ([107.189.48.35]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f77Ci-0006Jz-O8 for ding-account@gmane.org; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 00:30:00 +0200 X-Yomura-MXScrub: 1.0 Original-Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu (unknown [129.7.128.208]) by mxfilter-048035.atla03.us.yomura.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 752472c5-3f6a-11e8-a660-b499baabecb2; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 22:31:50 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by lists1.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1f77EQ-0004xl-SH; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 17:31:46 -0500 Original-Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by lists1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1f77EO-0004x5-US for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 17:31:45 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1f77EK-0007XC-U1 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 17:31:44 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (helo=blaine.gmane.org) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1f77EJ-000846-L6 for ding@gnus.org; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 00:31:39 +0200 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f77CB-0005lB-St for ding@gnus.org; Sat, 14 Apr 2018 00:29:27 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-Lines: 22 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Mail-Copies-To: never Cancel-Lock: sha1:cwlPhjpuZ3eJcNbjMtgE4ny6xEg= X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin (3.4.1 2015-04-28) analysis follows Bayesian score: 0.2975 Ham tokens: 0.000-17--625h-0s--0d--H*M:fsf, 0.000-13--481h-0s--0d--H*UA:Emacs, 0.000-13--478h-0s--0d--H*u:Emacs, 0.000-12--418h-0s--0d--followup, 0.000-11--389h-0s--0d--H*UA:Gnus Spam tokens: 0.997-30277--562h-24613s--0d--H*r:quimby.gnus.org, 0.997-18370--357h-14946s--0d--Hx-spam-relays-internal:sk:junkmas, 0.997-18370--357h-14946s--0d--H*RT:sk:junkmas, 0.997-18370--357h-14946s--0d--HX-Envelope-From:sk:junkmas, 0.995-31242--954h-25696s--0d--HTo:D*gnus.org Autolearn status: no autolearn_force=no 0.2 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different -0.0 BAYES_40 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 20 to 40% [score: 0.2975] 0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:87965 Archived-At: >>> "Lars" == Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > Uwe Brauer writes: >> Did I explain my problem now better? > But the question is: If you're not listed in To/Cc in a mail, and > you do a wide reply, should Gnus warn you about what you're doing? > I don't think so: It's a very common situation, especially with > mailing lists. On a second thought if in such a situation I will use gnus-summary-reply-with-original I will be asked Really reply by mail to article author? (y or n) y Couldn't we have (with a setting of a variable say) the same for followup? Really followup by mail to article authors (including the CC) ? (y or n) y