Eugene Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 26 Jun 2000:
> Mutt's group-reply is not the same thing as "reply to all". Mutt
> implements the former by putting the sender's address into the "To:"
> header, then takes all other addresses and puts them into the "Cc:"
> header. Most other email clients that implements the latter do so by
> putting all addresses into the "To:" header. Mutt has no built-in
> function to do the latter.
I've yet to see any reason why splitting the addresses between To/Cc
would be undesireable, or why it wouldn't be "reply to all". Although
the latter is a matter of definition, if you define "reply to all" so
that all the recipients are listed in the To header, then yes what Mutt
does is not a that.
But for me, "reply to all" means that when I reply to the message, it
goes to everyone (except me). I don't particularly care if the
addresses are in the To or Cc header, it will get delivered either way.
What is nice about Mutt separating addresses between To/Cc is that
you can use this knowledge at a later stage, if you want to edit the
recipient list -- eg. if you do a group-reply, but then later decide
that it should be just a normal reply to author, you can just erase all
of the Cc list. Simpler than trying to figure out which of the To
addresses was the one who sent you the email, and then removing the
rest.
Mikko
--
// Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/
// The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator /
// Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs /
"No more, no more a life without meaning..." -- The Corrs
