On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:51:54PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 04.02.16 11:24, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > On some mailing lists you're expected to keep people on CC, for > > example the gcc lists. So I need kind of a combination of a list > > reply and a group reply, i.e. put the list address in "To:" and > > add all other addresses that would be included in a group reply to > > "CC:". > > > > Or put in another way: In a group reply, if there is at least one > > mailing list in the recipient list, put all of them in the "To:" > > header and stick all non-list-recipients into the "CC:" header. > > OK, as is, "To:" becomes the sender of the post to which we're replying, > i.e. the person to whom we actually are replying, and "CC:" is the list > and all the other recipients of the prior post, i.e. the CC recipients. > The effect of that is the same as your proposed aesthetic variant, AIUI.
For one this is not just aesthetic, because putting a recipient in "CC:" tells him or her "you might be interested in this" while "To:" means "I'm talking specifically to you". I make this distinction frequently and may often not read a message thoroughly if I'm only in "CC:". And then what you describe does only work this way in some cases. Consider a message that I have sent to a list and cc'ed a colleague: From: ME To: LIST CC: COLLEAGUE Using group reply to my own message generates From: ME To: LIST, COLLEAGUE > On gcc-patches, for example, posts use every variant of the above, and > even have several recipients on "To:", and others on "CC:". But the most > common is the native behaviour of mutt, I observe. I.e. the list is more > often on "CC:". Well, "most common" is not a synonym for "correct". ;-) Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt IBM Germany
