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

Derek Martin invalid at pizzashack.org
Thu Dec 13 23:56:51 UTC 2018


On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 01:18:04PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 11.12.18 17:52, Derek Martin wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> May I humbly suggest that what matters most is what Kevin thinks, as
> he's the one with his sleeves rolled up.

You may suggest whatever you like, humbly or not.  But FWIW Kevin
isn't the only one with his sleeves rolled up--there are other
maintainers, and beyond that there are other contributors, myself
included, albeit infrequently.  But the position I'm advocating
requires no sleeves to be rolled up--no action whatsoever, so I'm not
sure that's relevant.  Though, as the primary maintainer, as I've
already said, Kevin certainly may do whatever he chooses.

My role here, as someone who's been around for a very long time,
usually is to remind people both that certain choices were made
intentionally and with good reason, and to weigh potential changes and
their inherent risks against the actual benefit they will provide.
I'm doing both of those things in this thread.  As you hint, the
decision ultimately is Kevin's, and I'm perfectly happy with that.

> Then the thoughts of the majority of the community bear
> consideration, especially when based on reason. 

The majority of the community said nothing at all, which suggests (as
I suggested) that most people don't actually give a $#@! about this,
as well they shouldn't.  I'll note that in response to Kevin's query,
two people (Ariis and Christiansen) said preserving the To: line was
sensible, and three people (Zimmerman, Yardley, and myself) said it
seems pointless.  There were no other opinions provided.

> Last and least come a sole opinion based on taking an RFC as
> evidence, then rewriting it when it fails to support an entrenched
> inflexible view.

Fortunately no such thing happened.  No one rewrote the RFC and it
explicitly supports the entrenched view, even if half-heartedly in
deference to existing mailers that do it differently.

-- 
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/eb4ee245/attachment.asc>


More information about the Mutt-users mailing list