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

[Kevin J. McCarthy]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 06:23:11PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:51:08AM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
>> But the "reason" supplied by the RFC, which I snipped to emphasize,
>> is a bit weak.
>
>I'm not sure why you think that.  You, just now, responded to
>something I said.

I responded to your message, but I replied to mutt-users.  That's the 
reason for the <list-reply> function, because the primary recipient was 
and continues to be the mailing list.

If you convert the mailing list concept to a group of "To" recipients 
instead, the same logic can apply.  A sends an email to B,C,D as a group 
conversation, "Where should we have lunch today".  B may respond to A's 
email, but her desire is to reply equally to all the other primary (to) 
recipients.  Her group-reply ought to put A,C,D in the To field.  This 
continues the indication that it's a group conversation whose primary 
recipients still include C and D.

I believe this pattern of conversation is more common now-a-days, and 
that it deserves support in the MUA.

-- 
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/cd065fb2/attachment.asc>