Re: [Nmh-workers] 1.3 release and Dcc/Bcc behaviour

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Paul,

> joel wrote:
> > 1) Some people have commented on the comp.mail.mh newsgroup that Bcc
> > and Dcc headers should not be removed before Fcc is processed, so
> > that the Fcc copy contains them. Since the default components has
> > Fcc: +outbox in it I'm inclined to agree. Does anyone disagree?
> > Perhaps there should be an option to "send" for this so we can have
> > it both ways, but I honestly don't see what could be desirable about
> > the current behaviour.
> 
> isn't the risk that, if you forward someone a copy from your outbox,
> that it will contain the bcc headers?

Agreed.

Besides, I've always found fcc useless.  It doesn't expand local user
names, e.g. `to: ralph' stays like that instead of becoming `to:
address@hidden', and there's no message-id which is vital for
referring someone back to an earlier email.  I dcc myself and file that
copy instead.  It too doesn't keep track of invisible recipients but
then that's good because of the forwarding danger Paul points out.  I
suppose some meta-data outside of the email file could keep track of
such things in son-of-MH.

Cheers,


Ralph.