On July 1, 2003 at 00:17, Bill Wohler wrote:

> I think a Fcc out of the box is entirely appropriate for new users. The
> Dcc usage that Earl suggests is a little more advanced, and is typically
> used with procmail which is even more advanced (although it is
> absolutely necessary these days). And remember that Dcc is still
> undocumented and thus shouldn't be added to the default files.

I never recommended that dcc should be in any default files.  I just
explained why I choose to use it over fcc.

> I've been using "Fcc: +out" for years. Inevitably, I get a "I lost your
> mail, please resend" at least once a month, and I often remind myself
> what I said. Perhaps Earl hasn't quite hit the magic-40 senility barrier
> yet ;-).
> While I use +out, I think +outbox is more MH-like than +sent-mail and
> would vote for +outbox for the default and may well edit my own
> components file accordingly now that I'm thinking of it.

After some thought, and reading the responses, I no longer have
objections to it.  As for the name, it should be "outbox" (with
a lowercase 'o') since it complements the default name of "inbox"
used when incorporating new mail.

The only potential confusion for new users about "Fcc: +outbox" is
that when they see it the first time when composing a message, they
may be confused on exactly what that means.

Other MUAs do the copying of sent mail "behind the scenes".  There is
no explicit indication during message composition that a copy of the
message will be filed when sent (it is a general setting of the MUA).

If you want to truly mirror the behavior of other MUAs, the filing
into the outbox would be done by send(1).  For example, a .mh_profile
would have:

  send: -fcc +outbox

When nmh if first initialized for a user, this could be a default
.mh_profile setting.

Either way, being a more advanced user, I do not care, but I think
it worth pointing out some behavioral issues with a default Fcc:
in components and how it compares with other MUAs.


Reply via email to