Hi Kevin, On 01-11-2019 18:56:06 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:56:24AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: > >As can be read from the Debian bug, the original rationale was to be > >able to keep Bcc-header in the Fcc copy, but not reveal the Bcc header > >to the MTA, so whatever policy/decision it has, it can never spill it to > >the recipients. > > Thanks Fabian, Steffen, and Gero. > > It sounds like this needs to be changed. I'm not sure I like the patch > as-is, but the basic idea sounds reasonable to me. > > I see three possibilities: > > 1) Change the default of $write_bcc to 'no', and also change the > behavior so that Bcc is written to the Fcc mailbox regardless of the > setting. This has the advantage of not changing any *documentated* > behavior, as the option says nothing about Fcc. (Of course, I'd update > the documentation and announce the changes.) > > 2) Change the behavior of $write_bcc to only control writing to the Fcc > mailbox (as the patch does). My question is whether the option is > useful in this state. Which leads to a third possibility: > > 3) Remove the option. Never write Bcc when sending, and always when > Fcc'ing.
I could live very well with 3). I'm assuming that's the simplest option. I have no problems with 1) either. 2) is obviously where some of us are right now, but in my opinion that path was chosen to honor original Mutt behaviour of having the option to enable/disable the header in the first place. Thanks! Fabian > I likely won't be able to look at this for about a week, as I travel > home, so opinions very welcome! -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
