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

Erik Christiansen dvalin at internode.on.net
Wed Dec 5 06:31:28 UTC 2018


On 05.12.18 00:44, Mihai Lazarescu wrote:
> 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.»

Yes, the separate fields replicate paper based systems with a long history
of established use. Any lack of awareness of the clear distinction
between the fields merely reveals a lack of experience of situations in
which it is important, such as in many a corporate culture. Where the
recipients are all in-house but from differing departments or teams,
then leaders will be in the To: list, and significant lieutenants (and
departments passively involved) in the Cc: list. The latter to review
the content, but reply may need to be from a leader to be acceptable.
I have been involved in cross-corporate exchanges (in between physical
meetings) where corporate relationships, contractual implications, and
domain of responsibility are important considerations. And being on the
Cc: list implied a responsibility to read and consult - not reply
unilaterally.

Thread comment: It's OK to be unaware of the usefulness of RFC features,
but it does seem odd to pretend that they're not useful just because
it's only others who need them.

Erik


More information about the Mutt-users mailing list