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

[Mihai Lazarescu]

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.

That's the meaning of To:/Cc: fields according to RFC5322 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.3

    «The "To:" field contains the address(es) of the primary 
    recipient(s) of the message.»

    «The "Cc:" field (where the "Cc" means "Carbon Copy" in 
    the sense of making a copy on a typewriter using carbon 
    paper) contains the addresses of others who are to receive 
    the message, though the content of the message may not be 
    directed at them.»

A distinction makes sense, otherwise Cc: would be an exact 
duplication of To:, hence redundant.

The same RFC requires that all original recipients should be 
included in reply (so at least Cc-ed).

But given the RFC distinctive meaning for the original To:/Cc:, 
it make sense to preserve it in reply-to-all.  Or dump the Cc: 
field altogether and always list recipients in To:. :-)

Mihai