Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 5322 group support

[Ken Hornstein]

>Then nmh is at fault AIUI;  there is no concept of hiding the recipients
>here, merely a group labelling of them.  It stops recipients replying to
>them.

By my count, it's 3 greybeards (Earl, Lyndon, and Robert) in the "it's
correct, leave it" camp, versus 1 in the "totally wrong" camp.  I'll let
you guys fight it out :-)  Personally, I'm on the side of "the behavior
makes sense, leave it as-is".

>The current behaviour should be solely achievable by
>
>    To: undisclosed-recipients:;
>    dcc: tom, dick, harry

Yeah, that's totally the same effect as the current implementation today.

>One of the nice things about MH/nmh is it's tried to follow the RFCs,
>e.g. Gmail still doesn't show Resent-* headers last time I looked.  I
>don't think we should deviate for this trivial case.  Is there a clue
>why the recipients are being removed in the change history?

No.  I actually went back and looked; this behavior existed in MH-5,
which by my reckoning was released in 1985; I lack the energy to
investigate further.  I thought there was something earlier, but I
couldn't find it.  I will note that Dcc support is a relatively new
feature compared to group address removal, and is not universally loved
by the greybeards:

revision 1.2
date: 1989/05/03 16:25:05;  author: sources;  state: Exp;  lines: +4 -2
add "Dcc:" header line.  This is basically a blind distribution copy.
addresses listed on Dcc: lines are put in the envelope only!
I don't intend to document this since Bcc: is the socially appropriate
header to use for such copies.
/JLR

That's as far back as the files we have under revision control.  And just
for the record, my beard is starting to show a few streaks of grey :-)

I don't think there's any objection to documenting this behavior, is there?
I know, it's in the MH Book, but we should have a brief mention of this
in the base man pages.

--Ken