Re: [Evolution-hackers] Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?

["Garreau\, Alexandre" <galex-713 galex-713 eu>]

On 2018-05-30 at 08:47, Milan Crha wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-05-30 at 03:04 +0200, Garreau, Alexandre wrote:
> > I didn’t understand… you receive the message then, right?
>
> Yes, but not from the list.

Hmm… that’s why I don’t like a such configuration, a such proper
handling would require to store somewhere the address of subscribed
mailing-lists and try to recognize one of these in the recipients
headers of each mail received.

> > Though contrarily to Evolution, the later
> > differentiate between “To:” and “Cc:” header (Evolution puts
> > everything in “To:”
>
> Hmm, as far as I can tell, Evolution preserves the CC header content.

I tried again: indeed, the behavior is different but it let people
previously in CC in CC.  However people that were in the “To” go in the
“To” instead of “Cc”, contrarily to “Wide reply”… given my understanding
of “Cc” (people you want to show the mail to, without addressing to
them) that seems maybe better… but I’m not sure yet.

> > and all the rest (that were in the “To:”, “Cc:” and “Bcc:”) in the
> > “Cc:”.
>
> I do not agree, there is a reason why there are people in Bcc. They
> should not be exposed in To or CC.

Oh sorry, indeed!  Bcc stay in Bcc sorry in fact.

> > What’s the difference between Group Reply, Reply to all and Reply to
> > list then?
>
> You can configure what Group Reply does, according to your
> preferences/habits.

That seems a bit anti-ergonomic :/ it would be better to have
unambiguously named command and their UI interface well placed, possibly
with their position exchanged according to your preferences/habits.

> > Alternative Reply?
>
> Right, it's part of the development version. To be released in 3.30.0+.

Oh ok, I’m still under Debian stable so I probably don’t have access to
it…  What does it do?

> > “Complicated” doesn’t mean complete, complex or big, and “Evolution”
> > may metonymically refers to its UI as well.
>
> There had been a criticism that the menus are too long already. I refer
> just to that.

Yes indeed.