On July 1, 2003 at 07:47, Jerry Peek wrote: > A lot of us use the "dcc:" header field. It acts like "bcc:" does on > most other MUAs. Is there any reason not to add a paragraph about it to > the send(1) manpage? > > My Linux box is down right now, so I can't check this out, but here's a > new paragraph. (I guess "Dcc:" works as well as "dcc:", which is what I > use... but I'm not sure.) I'll include the existing "Bcc:" paragraph -- > which, I think, the dcc info should follow: > > ----- snip ------ > > If a "Bcc:" field is encountered, its addresses will be used for > delivery, and the "Bcc:" field will be removed from the message sent to > sighted recipients. The blind recipients will receive an entirely new > message with a minimal set of headers. Included in the body of the > message will be a copy of the message sent to the sighted recipients. > > If a "Dcc:" field is encountered, its addresses will be used for > delivery, and the "Dcc:" field will be removed from the message. The > blind recipients will receive the same message sent to the sighted > recipients. > > ----- snip ------ > > Comments? Votes?
+1 Including the additional note about the dangers of using dcc. Personally, I use dcc when copying myself and bcc when copying someone else. I personally dislike the bcc behavior of other MUAs since they provide no indication to the receipient that they have received a blind-carbon copy. I think the bcc behavior of MH/nmh is what all MUAs should do. Related comment: It may be worth considering making bcc MIME aware. I.e. Have an option that for Bcc addresses, the mail message is wrapped in a message/rfc822 media-type. This will be useful for bcc messages that are mime encoded. If I remember correctly, if you bcc a mime message, the bcc wrapping screws up the mime encoding. --ewh