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

[Kevin J. McCarthy]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 05:29:01PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
>I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but for the sake of 
>clarity about RFC features, here's what RFC 2822 says on the matter 
>(3.6.3, paragraph 6):
>
>   [...]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.

Okay, that's a good argument for keeping the default behavior as-is.

But the "reason" supplied by the RFC, which I snipped to emphasize, is a 
bit weak.  Certainly there are situations where the other "To" 
recipients might be secondary recipients of the reply.  However, there 
are also situations where they should be primary recipients of the 
reply.

In fact thinking over my own personal usage, preserving To recipients 
would be _my_ more common preference.  This is something I would like to 
have control over, not be subject to an RFC's thought on the situation.

>Still, Mutt is such a beast to configure as it is, with so many 
>configuration options, by default I lean heavily against adding more 
>options unless it can be shown that there's significant benefit.

I'm also not a big fan of adding configuration variables for trivial 
things.  Perhaps in this case a new function is merited.  People could 
rebind 'g' if desired, or bind to a new key to have the choice when 
replying (e.g. 'G').

Just to get a good bikeshedding going, are there any suggestions?  What 
about <group-chat-reply>?

-- 
Kevin J. McCarthy
GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C  5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mutt.org/pipermail/mutt-users/attachments/20181211/3a147e56/attachment.asc>