[Mutt] Re: Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Derek Martin]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:39:31PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 10.12.18 17:29, Derek Martin wrote:
> >    When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
> >    authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:"
> >    field) or mailboxes specified in the "Reply-To:" field (if it
> >    exists) MAY appear in the "To:" field of the reply since these
> >    would normally be the primary recipients of the reply.  If a reply
> >    is sent to a message that has destination fields, it is often
> >    desirable to send a copy of the reply to all of the recipients of
> >    the message, in addition to the author.  When such a reply is
> >    formed, addresses in the "To:" and "Cc:" fields of the original
> >    message MAY appear in the "Cc:" field of the reply, since these are
> >    normally secondary recipients of the reply.
> > 
> > It recomments Mutt's current behavior, for precisely the reasons I
> > gave in support of it.  The person who opened the ticket stated that
> > the expected behavior is for the recipients in the To: field to be
> > preserved, but the RFC clearly states otherwise.
> 
> It clearly states that it "MAY" be otherwise. 

Yes, I did not think I needed to say this explicity, but it also
explains why:  Because that usage is the one that corresponds to the
stated purpose of those fields.  As such it is the obvious, and should
be preferred, way to use them on replies.  Using the fields the way
they are intended to be used, to me, adheres to the principle of least
surprise.  It certainly has (clearly) always matched my personal
expectation such that I've never given it a second thought.  But I
still say it mostly doesn't, and shouldn't, matter in practical use.

[I'd obviously prefer the RFC should say "SHOULD" instead of "MAY" but
you get what you get when someone else does it for you.]

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mutt.org/pipermail/mutt-users/attachments/20181211/4066989b/attachment.asc>