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

[Derek Martin]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:37:02PM +0000, Nuno Silva wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Can't what is the least surprising to you be more surprising to somebody
> else?

In general?  Of course.  But not in this particular context, no.  The
RFC is the spec, and being logically consistent with the spec is the
only "least surprising" that matters.

[There is of course the case where the spec is logically inconsistent
with itself.  That's another matter.]

-- 
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/20181211/9febb26e/attachment.asc>