From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.manjaro.org (mail.manjaro.org [116.203.91.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E862A3BB30 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 07:51:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708501872; cv=none; b=EpcOZtxa7Qc20czQpZYM4NSyp/B3zYEEGPxk1BaHfnJnP4hMAQC3tFNZb7FQ2WU3MM194ojLJy6ElXHdJbIIJT8tSxW8LD/9Rs7QGeZBbKfdybGJNI81/79R/5j+WkBMnhhmikhK++WXXuVk/DFYnfkSfD3pBh0KAImsQX4WXBw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708501872; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7tMuJP60BzAdJh+ILCnOJKPG8+ul3sYOsDUeQO9iruQ=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=IwpoE+EXinfmiv9V6H3dqyBtWeKgK0BdpAee8Iy9GKhhTR0Q+kC2TDEVijkIzkQGfVmL8LWYYWLyUlQJdwAcpyDSd7U/qWvUsbaVjbJGINJim0JBSJ3aO26WMfe3w2sn/bVrrq1kbIjfJnyVZq4YlfB8joQtd9ATvSwXpCQGYGY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b=PosB6wvG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b="PosB6wvG" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manjaro.org; s=2021; t=1708501860; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nuSIZjtCbHX4NFAK07FmVtqbhqUkItZYRqjH8tS+dWI=; b=PosB6wvGNaFm9AYFlkO2cij9Wf/ccXo9u/Xz4XTlTaDIkjppIFFXRjyBdf1I1RvNnI9Kig mNRKFE59M/Qjg7NsLVwsRll05IDQXQZG6xbbxigMg3kbdELkb8+CGiyVu5dBb/ZpC7JYo1 msRen0BOkyDBk6xF8xiGPY/Q7PC2dZPZcPE5WPSMwzq0rJknXeX/KK3wQ2ss9IWxWlOnJl /QCg1t2OAu0O9GnYYfj/IQlgERIk51hQcDhlSZ7AJlp6xk7vwAggcuMeUGL/HlEWxlV1cn oZscWwbjAwOYZLmZ1cYLa/k/x1HSxFlI0abZV00M5Xomnq6NYisEN8ukFNQ9LQ== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 08:50:59 +0100 From: Dragan Simic To: Chris Torek Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] documentation: send-email: use camel case consistently In-Reply-To: References: <33abb630c1d089e39ff48f04e586b1c0@manjaro.org> <9d0022ba5666223af94bbf450909b1ba@manjaro.org> Message-ID: X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org On 2024-02-21 01:43, Chris Torek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 8:42 AM Dragan Simic > wrote: >> I've never ever seen anyone referring to email headers as "TO", "CC" >> or >> "BCC". It's always referred to as "To", "Cc" and "Bcc". > > I used some email system (back in the early 1980s) that did that. It > felt weird even then. I can't remember if it was some CSMail (CSNet) > or MH(Rand Mail Handler) version that did it. That's interesting, it shows that different variants were used in the very early days of email. Maybe even the all-lowercase "cc" and "bcc" variants were used somewhere, at least because RFC2076 (better said, the RFCs that predate it) specifies them. >> Thus, "cc" stems from the old age of literal carbon copies ... > > That's correct. However: > >> and "bcc" was seemingly coined when email took over. > > "Blind Carbon Copies" predated email, but required adding the > notation separately, if it was to be added at all. (I'm just old enough > to remember using carbon copies myself, but not old enough to > know what Standard Office Practice was at that time.) Thanks for the correction. You're right, I was lazy enough not to check that blind carbon copies predate the age of email. [1] I'm also old enough to remember the literal carbon copies, I even made a few dozens of them myself on a mechanical typewriter. They usually left me with dirty fingertips. :) Though, I'm also not old enough to know what the common office practice was like back then. > Whether adding a "bcc" notation was common I don't know; > it seems it would be easier to leave it off if you made, say, one > original and a total of 2 copies, one "blinded". > > (As your Wikipedia link notes, there was a practical limit to how > many carbon copies one could make in the first place.) Exactly, it was the limitation of mechanical typewriters. Perhaps the limit was around four or five carbon copies. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_carbon_copy