Re: group-reply - bug or feature?
[=- René Clerc wrote on Tue 20.Sep'05 at 13:46:58 +0200 -=]
> * Paul Walker <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [20-09-2005 13:33]:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:57:22AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >
> > > Whether the original To header goes into a reply's To or CC
> > > header. Current behavior is CC, behavior desired by some is
> > > To. I don't really care, but I'm used to the current
> > > behavior.
> >
> > Ah. My preference, assuming we're talking about a group-reply
> > to a mail sent by someone else, is very definitely for the
> > existing behaviour.
>
> Same here. The current behavior makes perfectly sense, IMO.
I agree with staying with the current behaviour, not because of
habit but because it makes (more?) sense. That's probably because
I don't know the reasoning behind filling up To: with all who once
contributed to a group-reply, even if the body doesn't contain any
of their literal contribution anymore. If that was discussed
before I joined mutt-dev, some pointers for subject or date will
be appreciated.
The history of contributers has only value for statistics of a
group-reply. Keeping only the previous sender in To: let's
quickly learn to whom this is a direct response, which I consider
more beneficial.
--
© Rado S. -- So much to do, but too little time to take care of it all.