On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 08:57:40PM +1100, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:31:13 -0500, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins at 
> finestructure.net> wrote:
> > Hi, folks.  I've been following this thread a bit and I wanted to put
> > in my argument that using Bcc is *NOT* the way to save local copies of
> > sent mail.  I really don't think that we need to require that the mail
> > actually get send out to the world wide net just to save a copy of it
> > locally.  I think there must be better ways of doing this.
> Agreed, and I think that directly saving to a file is the sane way to
> go.  However, there might be other (more legitimate) uses for always
> bcc-ing a certain address on all sent mail, and it might be good to have
> an easy mechanism for this.  

I certainly have no problem with there being the ability to specify an
address that is always Bcc'd on sent mail.  I think that's a fine
idea.  I just think that saving local copies of sent mail directly is
an important thing to do, and we should figure out the best way to
support it correctly.  Every mailer that I know of has some way to
save local copies of sent mail, and I think most users will expect
such a feature.

An important thing to consider is that all of this locally saved sent
mail should also be immediately incorporated into the database so that
it can be immediately searched and displayed with it's relevant

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature

Reply via email to