On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:20:57PM +0100, Mihai Lazarescu wrote:
> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 17:56:51 -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
>
> >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 the
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 05:56:51PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
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'm pretty happy with the turnout. I've re-read the discussion and
On 2018-12-13 17:56, Derek Martin wrote:
> 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
On 2018-12-13, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 01:18:04PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
>
>> 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 sug
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 17:48:14 -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:08:16PM +0100, Mihai T. Lazarescu wrote:
> >If a reply is sent to a message that has destination fields, it
> >is often desirable to send a copy of the reply to all of the
> >recipients o
On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 17:56:51 -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
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
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 +, 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 t
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.
> >
> >
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 18:23:11 -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
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'
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
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 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 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 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 09:08:16PM +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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but fo
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 n
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 hav
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
On 30.11.18 01:34, Francesco Ariis 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.
>
> I suspect work related setting. Cc: is indeed "being kept in the loop"
> while To: is "addressed sp
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.
I suspect work related setting. Cc: is indeed "being kept in the loop"
while To: is "addressed specifically".
I have never noticed mutt behaviour, but
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
On 2018-11-29 13:26, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> Someone opened a ticket asking about Mutt's group reply behavior.
>
> By default (i.e. ignoring Mail-Followup-To, $reply_self, $reply_to,
> etc.), the To recipients are added to the Cc list of the reply. The
> ticket reporter thought it made more s
Someone opened a ticket asking about Mutt's group reply behavior.
By default (i.e. ignoring Mail-Followup-To, $reply_self, $reply_to,
etc.), the To recipients are added to the Cc list of the reply. The
ticket reporter thought it made more sense for To recipients to remain
in the To list of th
30 matches
Mail list logo
