> Jason and Kelly are basically asking to send the mail with the From of another person.
This is not precisely true as far as I am personally concerned. My comment was from a bug-handling process perspective alone; it wasn't a comment on what I, myself, desire to see implemented in Thunderbird. Those two things are related, but not identical.
Twenty-two years ago I wanted to see what was asked for implemented. (And what was just implemented is not what was asked for.) Now, I'm on the fence about what I want, but that's irrelevant.
What's true is that in order to resolve this bug as fixed, the mail must use "the From of another person." If you decide that's not desirable behaviour (and I'm not saying that's an unreasonable conclusion), and want to implement something different than what was asked for—as seems to be the case here, then you need to back out what was done, resolve this bug as "won't fix," and create a new bug for some different kind of behaviour. The different behaviour that was recently implemented would then need to be associated with the new bug, not with this one.
At the very least, this new behaviour—which, if kept, I still think should be linked to a new bug—should not be called "redirect" or "bounce." It's a behaviour that, as far as I know, has never existed before. As others have said, it's really just a modified form of forwarding. But I can think of no one- or two-word name for it that would make the behaviour self-explanatory.
Bug 12916 Comment 419 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
> Jason and Kelly are basically asking to send the mail with the From of another person.
This is not precisely true as far as I am personally concerned. My comment was from a bug-handling process perspective alone; it wasn't a comment on what I, myself, desire to see implemented in Thunderbird. Those two things are related, but not identical.
Twenty-two years ago I wanted to see what was asked for implemented. (And what was just implemented is not what was asked for.) Now, I'm on the fence about what I want, but that's irrelevant.
What's true is that in order to resolve this bug as fixed, the mail must use "the From of another person." If you decide that's not desirable behaviour (and I'm not saying that's an unreasonable conclusion), and want to implement something different than what was asked for—as seems to be the case here, then you need to back out what was done, resolve this bug as "won't fix," and create a new bug for some different kind of behaviour. The different behaviour that was recently implemented would then need to be associated with the new bug, not with this one.
At the very least, this new behaviour—which, if kept, I still think should be linked to a new bug—should not be called "redirect" or "bounce." It's a behaviour that, as far as I know, has never existed before. As others have said, it's really just a modified form of forwarding. But I can think of no one- or two-word name for it that would make the behaviour self-explanatory.