Re: Why not document dcc:?
Well, really, what we call dcc is what other MUAs implement as bcc. I think that our bcc makes more sense, but it does confuse people.
Re: Why not document dcc:?
Comments? Votes? Seems reasonable to me. --Ken
Re: Why not document dcc:?
Date:Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:47:32 -0700 From:Jerry Peek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Comments? Votes? Yes, dcc has been around long enough that it isn't about to vanish next week... (and 2822 managed to avoid stealing that field name for some other purpose, which was really the big risk - now I think we're pretty safe to assume there won't be another update for a long time). And yes, Dcc and dcc had better be treated the same, all field names are supposed to be case independent (and I have no doubts that nmh (and MH before it) does this correctly). But I would include a sentence or two about the risks of using dcc when really sending a bcc (as opposed to a cc to myself). Perhaps something like Note that the users listed in the dcc field receive no explicit indication that others who received the message are not aware that a copy was sent to them. This can cause blind recipients to inadvertently reply to all of the sighted recipients of the original message, revealing that they received a blind copy. On the other hand, a normal reply to a message sent via a bcc field will generate a reply only to the sender of the original message, it takes extra effort in most mailers to reply to the included message, and so would usually only be done deliberately, rather than by accident. Or perhaps an abbreviated version of that... kre
Re: Why not document dcc:?
Robert Elz wrote: ... I would include a sentence or two about the risks of using dcc when really sending a bcc (as opposed to a cc to myself). Perhaps something like Note that the users listed in the dcc field receive no explicit indication that others who received the message are not aware that a copy was sent to them. This can cause blind recipients to inadvertently reply to all of the sighted recipients of the original message, revealing that they received a blind copy. On the other hand, a normal reply to a message sent via a bcc field will generate a reply only to the sender of the original message, it takes extra effort in most mailers to reply to the included message, and so would usually only be done deliberately, rather than by accident. Or perhaps an abbreviated version of that... Hmmm... we wouldn't want to actually *explain* anything in a manpage, would we? ;-) Seriously, that extra info looks good to me. We might be able to do without the last sentence, though; I think people will figure it out pretty quickly. Jerry -- Jerry Peek, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.jpeek.com/
Re: Why not document dcc:?
Ralph Corderoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps mention it in the fcc description as an alternative. I found fcc useless for my purposes; it's really handy to have the real message-id, etc. Have mh set the message-id send: -msgid in your .mh_profile -NWR
Re: Why not document dcc:?
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
Re: Why not document dcc:?
Earl Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Earl and I are in total agreement here. I can't think of any reasons why we shouldn't document dcc. It works well with building whitelists with procmail, for example. -- Bill Wohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG ID:610BD9AD Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and MH-E. Vote Libertarian! If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.
