> > > As to my experience (with procmail filtering), it is unreliable to > > > expect that the send-msg-to-list address appears in To: or Cc:. > > so this list distributes messages when the list is in the BCC header? > > well, blame the list admin then! > Yes, and I won't waste time on politics, which is what complainig to > list owners boils down to. Besides, I actually find bcc: mailinglist > useful, to avoid private addresses in to: appearing on the list. > Extremely useful actually.
You got it the wrong way round. "BCC list" is *bad* - for several reasons. With "BCC list" the header looks like a private mail - but then it has also been copied to a list and thus be made public. That's poor taste. "BCC list" also makes it impossible for many people to filter the mail or to reply to it. Now, "TO list BCC private" - that's fine. > > and i almost never see the "clutter" as my shell's globbing > > allows to leave them out in a very simple way: > > ls *(^@) > Too much typing. alias ll="ls -l *(^@)" now, if you had to do this using "find" and "sed", well, *that* would be too much typing. and still there is aliasing for your shells. this ain't windows! > > PS: Volker - you do not seem to attribute quoted text. > > that is bad. especially on mailing lists. > Personal opinion. I find it a waste of bandwidth. Yes, attributing text to you certainly is. Sven
