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.»
A distinction makes sense, otherwise Cc: would be an exact duplication of To:, hence redundant.
The same RFC requires that all original recipients should be included in reply (so at least Cc-ed).
But given the RFC distinctive meaning for the original To:/Cc:, it make sense to preserve it in reply-to-all. Or dump the Cc: field altogether and always list recipients in To:. :-)
Mihai
