Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 5322 group support

[Earl Hood]

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:

> So I guess my questions are:
>
> - Any of the greybeards here want to expand on the original thinking behind
>   group addresses?

I got some grey, but I still have some color in it.  Jeez, I guess I
am getting old.

> - Should we leave the current behavior?  It's been this way forever and I
>   think it's the most useful behavior for dealing with groups, but I just
>   want to be sure everyone is on the same page.  It doesn't seem to be
>   documented anywhere (but it is mentioned in the MH book).

The way nmh does things is what I am familiar pre-nmh days (MH) when I
was at UCI.

I see no reason to change it.

Other people with other MUAs tend to use bcc to do something similiar
where the recipients of the message are not exposed in the message, but
I like the MH/nmh way better.

On a related comment, I always like that MH/nmh includes lines
indicating if a message was a blind carbon copy.

--ewh