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:" >> > field) or mailboxes specified in the "Reply-To:" field (if it >> > exists) MAY appear in the "To:" field of the reply since these >> > would normally be the primary recipients of the reply. 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 of >> > the message, in addition to the author. When such a reply is >> > formed, addresses in the "To:" and "Cc:" fields of the original >> > message MAY appear in the "Cc:" field of the reply, 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. The person who opened the ticket stated that >> > the expected behavior is for the recipients in the To: field to be >> > preserved, but the RFC clearly states otherwise. >> >> It clearly states that it "MAY" be otherwise. > > 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 to use them on replies. Using the fields the way > they are intended to be used, to me, adheres to the principle of least > surprise.
Can't what is the least surprising to you be more surprising to somebody else? > It certainly has (clearly) always matched my personal > expectation such that I've never given it a second thought. But I > still say it mostly doesn't, and shouldn't, matter in practical use. > > [I'd obviously prefer the RFC should say "SHOULD" instead of "MAY" but > you get what you get when someone else does it for you.] -- Nuno Silva
