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.
I responded to your message, but I replied to mutt-users. That's the reason for the <list-reply> function, because the primary recipient was and continues to be the mailing list.
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, but her desire is to reply equally to all the other primary (to) recipients. Her group-reply ought to put A,C,D in the To field. This continues the indication that it's a group conversation whose primary recipients still include C and D.
I believe this pattern of conversation is more common now-a-days, and that it deserves support in the MUA.
-- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
