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

Derek Martin invalid at pizzashack.org
Thu Dec 13 23:14:00 UTC 2018


On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 06:41:17PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> 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.

You used Mutt's list-reply feature, which still most mailers don't
have.  As for the list being the primary recipient, a demonstration to
the contrary:

Imagine you're standing in a group of people, and someone says
something to the group. If you respond to what that person says, do
you face that person?  I promise you, unless you're neuro-atypical,
you most likely do, because it is that person you are primarily
addressing; and since it is, it is natural to address them directly.
even if it is a group conversation.  It's no different if you're
participating in a mailing list, except that instead of face-to-face,
the conversation is electronic, and your circle of friends doesn't
have a Cc: line.

The whole reason to have a mailing list:  One person asks a question
or posts some info, responses are specifically for them, but may be of
interest to others.  They (the list members) are being kept in the
loop.  It's automatic Cc:.  It's a clever hack to prevent you from
having to manually manage the recipient list each time you want to
message a group of people which may (or may not) be interested in what
you're messaging about.  

Mutt evolved functionality to deal with this, and a small handful of
other mailers copied it.  A clever hack on top of a clever hack.
Even now, most major mailers don't give you that option--you'd need to
use group reply, which would still put the sender to whom you're
replying in the To: line, and put the list address in the Cc: line.

> 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 think you have that backward--it's the mailing list that has been
converted from the traditional method of addressing recipients, as an
exceptional case.  But sans any list-reply function, replies instantly
revert to traditional addressing on all mailers, including those which
preserve the To: line.

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

It was no less common in the early days of e-mail, and I would imagine
it was actually a higher percentage of messages that were used this
way, since Internet mail was mostly used by the folks who were
creating the Internet, to discuss how to create the Internet...  This
is not new.

-- 
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/20181213/35a55899/attachment.asc>


More information about the Mutt-users mailing list