>i've just raised bug https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?55700 >and i'm working on a fix for this for debian.
Can I just say, up front, that this just another example of why sendmail/pipe is a TERRIBLE idea? There was a reason it was shoved into the undocumented "spost" program in MH. But, fine .... I just had to get that off my chest. Moving on. >1. with sendmail/pipe the headers of what we pass to the mta must make >sense for message routing, but the warning-encrusted modified draft >baked for bccfil doesn't work because it has no to: and no bcc: headers, >so the mta rejects that as unroutable. the original message that post >also submits to the mta is left with bcc intact (and >thus the mta does deliver it to the blind recipients), which duplicates >the (currently nonfunctional) warning-encrusted message. Alright, I guess that is a bug that has been around for ... 7 years? That's when spost was merged with post. >so, in order to make bcc: be both blind and warning-encrusted as per >the documentation we'd have to modify the original draft and nuke >its bcc: header, and add a bcc: header to the bccfil draft. > >the patch that i've already attached to the bug report doesn't go that far, >it makes bcc with sendmail/pipe work like dcc elsewhere. (it also doesn't >contain any documentation updates.) > >my question: is that good enough? or should we aim for bcc working exactly >the same regardless of mts? Many electrons have been spilled about Bcc, Dcc, and nmh's use of them. I kind of feel that nmh's Bcc is kind of dumb, but that behavior has been around for approximately forever so I think changing that is not a good idea. And it strikes me as a bad idea to have Bcc behave differently depending on the MTS you are using. So I think when stripping Bcc out of the original draft and putting it IN the Bcc draft makes the most sense. I don't even think this is hard, because we already do that for other MTSes (well, other than post is kind of a mess, but I think the pieces are there). >2. the docs say dcc isn't supported for sendmail/pipe, which is ok. >however, that fact is not overly visibly documented, which is slightly bad. Well ... where should this be documented better? I am all for improving our documentation, it's just there is a lot of it and it could use some organizational improvements. Really, if you have some suggestions I would be glad to make them; I don't want to shove this on you, especially if you are contributing a bug fix. >my question: wouldn't it be best if dcc in the sendmail/pipe case was >handled by simply replacing the header with bcc: and letting the mta do >its job? or should post with sendmail/pipe reject messages with dcc? I firmly believe that post should reject the message immediately and nothing should be sent. --Ken -- nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
