On 05.12.18 00:44, Mihai Lazarescu wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:12:08PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:41:12PM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > > > > I am curious to know in what context "someone" felt it would > > > make a difference. > > > > The ticket number is 98, but I thought mutt-users would be a better > > place to have a discussion. > > > > I can't speak for the reporter, but my understanding was the desire > > to preserve the distinction between primary recipients, towards whom > > the conversation is directly relevant, and others who may be just > > being kept in the loop. > > That's the meaning of To:/Cc: fields according to RFC5322 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.3 > > «The "To:" field contains the address(es) of the primary recipient(s) > of the message.» > > «The "Cc:" field (where the "Cc" means "Carbon Copy" in the sense of > making a copy on a typewriter using carbon paper) contains the addresses > of others who are to receive the message, though the content of the > message may not be directed at them.»
Yes, the separate fields replicate paper based systems with a long history of established use. Any lack of awareness of the clear distinction between the fields merely reveals a lack of experience of situations in which it is important, such as in many a corporate culture. Where the recipients are all in-house but from differing departments or teams, then leaders will be in the To: list, and significant lieutenants (and departments passively involved) in the Cc: list. The latter to review the content, but reply may need to be from a leader to be acceptable. I have been involved in cross-corporate exchanges (in between physical meetings) where corporate relationships, contractual implications, and domain of responsibility are important considerations. And being on the Cc: list implied a responsibility to read and consult - not reply unilaterally. Thread comment: It's OK to be unaware of the usefulness of RFC features, but it does seem odd to pretend that they're not useful just because it's only others who need them. Erik
