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.
Comments? Votes?
Seems reasonable to me.
--Ken
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
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
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
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
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
