Group reply To-vs-Cc recipients

[Derek Martin]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:12:08PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> >I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would make
> >a difference.
> 
> The ticket number is 98, but I thought mutt-users would be a better
> place to have a discussion.
> 
> I can't speak for the reporter, but my understanding was the desire
> to preserve the distinction between primary recipients, towards whom
> the conversation is directly relevant, and others who may be just
> being kept in the loop.

A reply is inherently a response to something someone else said, and
as such that person is the only specific recipient, and all other
recipients are receiving a carbon copy.  I believe Mutt's current
behavior is correct in the spirit of how these fields are meant to be
used.

That said, FWIW, I almost never even look at the mail envelope, unless
I'm writing a "sensitive" response, so that I can make a decision as
to whether or not the recipient list needs to be pruned.  I mostly
think the notion that "If I'm only on the CC list I can ignore this"
is idiotic...  Like most people, anything superfluous that I can
ignore, I certainly will; so putting me on the CC list, if that is
your intent, is a waste of your time.  But I think recipients should
generally know whether they can or should ignore a thread from its
context and their relationship to the issue.  Rely on the message
envelope to decide that for you at your own peril.

-- 
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/20181204/877aeb57/attachment.asc>