On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:51:08AM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 05:29:01PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > > [...]since these are normally secondary recipients of the reply. > > > >It recomments Mutt's current behavior, for precisely the reasons I > >gave in support of it. > > Okay, that's a good argument for keeping the default behavior as-is. > > 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. Without the thing I said you have no purpose in replying to the message. Therefore principally, inherently, it is me that you are responding to... no one else said the thing you're responding to, only me. I am the only principle recipient of your message. Everyone else who is a recipient, inherently, you are just keeping in the loop, because they may be interested in your follow-up to my message. That's exactly the stated purpose of the Cc: line. That is a fact, and it's a fact your mailer can easily deal with. You can concoct all sorts of other reasons to put additional people on the To: line. But they have nothing to do with who the principle recipient of the message is, and as such they have nothing to do with the defined purpose of the To: line. [It should be noted that at this point I'm arguing purely for the sake of the argument itself, for the satisfaction of principle and logic, and no other reason. I object to adding any code to Mutt to allow for this purely on the basis of pragmatism: I mostly think people who care about this are being silly and it's not worth even a line of code--but if you really want to add it, you should go right ahead and do that. But if you want to argue what is RIGHT, I'll assure you that my positions are nearly always very well researched and thought out, and I'll defend them--without malice--to the death. Right up until someone actually proves me wrong. =8^)] -- 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.
pgpboYfeuOAAI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
