>Then nmh is at fault AIUI; there is no concept of hiding the recipients >here, merely a group labelling of them. It stops recipients replying to >them.
By my count, it's 3 greybeards (Earl, Lyndon, and Robert) in the "it's correct, leave it" camp, versus 1 in the "totally wrong" camp. I'll let you guys fight it out :-) Personally, I'm on the side of "the behavior makes sense, leave it as-is". >The current behaviour should be solely achievable by > > To: undisclosed-recipients:; > dcc: tom, dick, harry Yeah, that's totally the same effect as the current implementation today. >One of the nice things about MH/nmh is it's tried to follow the RFCs, >e.g. Gmail still doesn't show Resent-* headers last time I looked. I >don't think we should deviate for this trivial case. Is there a clue >why the recipients are being removed in the change history? No. I actually went back and looked; this behavior existed in MH-5, which by my reckoning was released in 1985; I lack the energy to investigate further. I thought there was something earlier, but I couldn't find it. I will note that Dcc support is a relatively new feature compared to group address removal, and is not universally loved by the greybeards: revision 1.2 date: 1989/05/03 16:25:05; author: sources; state: Exp; lines: +4 -2 add "Dcc:" header line. This is basically a blind distribution copy. addresses listed on Dcc: lines are put in the envelope only! I don't intend to document this since Bcc: is the socially appropriate header to use for such copies. /JLR That's as far back as the files we have under revision control. And just for the record, my beard is starting to show a few streaks of grey :-) I don't think there's any objection to documenting this behavior, is there? I know, it's in the MH Book, but we should have a brief mention of this in the base man pages. --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
