Date:        Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:47:32 -0700
    From:        Jerry Peek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
    Message-ID:  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  | Comments?  Votes?

Yes, dcc has been around long enough that it isn't about to vanish
next week...   (and 2822 managed to avoid stealing that field name
for some other purpose, which was really the big risk - now I think
we're pretty safe to assume there won't be another update for a long

And yes, Dcc and dcc had better be treated the same, all field names
are supposed to be case independent (and I have no doubts that nmh
(and MH before it) does this correctly).

But I would include a sentence or two about the risks of using dcc
when really sending a bcc (as opposed to a cc to myself).

Perhaps something like

        Note that the users listed in the dcc field receive no explicit
        indication that others who received the message are not aware that
        a copy was sent to them.  This can cause blind recipients to
        inadvertently reply to all of the sighted recipients of the
        original message, revealing that they received a blind  copy.
        On the other hand, a normal reply to a message sent via a bcc field
        will generate a reply only to the sender of the original message,
        it takes extra effort in most mailers to reply to the included
        message, and so would usually only be done deliberately, rather
        than by accident.

Or perhaps an abbreviated version of that...


Reply via email to