On 10.12.18 17:29, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:31:28PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > 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.
>
>
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:39:31PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 10.12.18 17:29, Derek Martin wrote:
> >When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
> >authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:"
> >field) or mailboxes specified in the "Rep
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 05:29:01PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but for the sake of
clarity about RFC features, here's what RFC 2822 says on the matter
(3.6.3, paragraph 6):
[...]since these are normally secondary recipients of the reply.
It recomm
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:29 AM Derek Martin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:31:28PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > 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
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 21:08:16 +0100, Mihai Lazarescu wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:29 AM Derek Martin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:31:28PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > Thread comment: It's OK to be unaware of the usefulness of RFC features,
> > but it does seem o
On 2018-12-11, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:39:31PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
>> On 10.12.18 17:29, Derek Martin wrote:
>> >When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
>> >authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:"
>> >
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:08:16PM +0100, Mihai T. Lazarescu wrote:
> > It recomments Mutt's current behavior
>
> I disagree on "recommends". Actually "may", as modal verb, is used to
> express *possibility* or used to ask or give *permission* (or is used
> to make a *suggestion* or suggest a *po
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:37:02PM +, 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
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
On 11.12.18 17:52, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:37:02PM +, 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
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.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 06:41:17PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> 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, bu
12 matches
Mail list logo
