On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 03:22:33PM -0400, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > On Thursday, May 18 at 09:16 AM, quoth Justin Pryzby: > >I recently sent a message to a handful of people, each of whom was in > >the Bcc: field, since the don't know each other and don't need to. > >Later, I had reason to refer to the list of address to which I'd sent > >the mail, but, upon checking my =sent mbox, discovered that mutt had > >not stored this information for me. It occurs to me that this might > >be intentional, but it isn't clear why this behaviour would be > >desired. Bcc needn't hide the recipients' addresses from the sender.. > > This feature is controlled by the $write_bcc setting. You tell mutt to > save the BCC header by adding "set write_bcc" to your muttrc file. > > It does, however, need to be turned off (unset) if your MTA does not > strip that header (most do, but exim does not). Setting write_bcc saves that annotation to my fcc folder as I originally expected. However, as you noted, the bcc annotation is then visible by the recipients in the message they receive, defeating its purpose.
Why doesn't mutt write the bcc header to =sent, even if it is not being written to the MTA (or at least make these two things independant)? Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
