I didn't read the comp.mail.mh article, so maybe I'm repeating what was
said there. But whenever I use dcc:, I always end up saving those lines
to a temporary file (or copying them with my mouse), then editing my
copy to add that field to it -- so I can find out, later, who I sent the
message
Ralph Corderoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mar 30, 2007:
>Agreed.
>Besides, I've always found fcc useless. It doesn't expand local user
>names, e.g. `to: ralph' stays like that instead of becoming `to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]', and there's no message-id which is vital for
>referring someone back to
Hi Jerrad,
> > Perhaps I wasn't clear. If I have
>
> Indeed.
Actually, I was just being polite. My second message merely repeated
the information that was in the first.
> > The former isn't very helpful if I ever wish to dist or forw the
> > email on. No message-id is a killer.
>
> Meh, it s
>Perhaps I wasn't clear. If I have
Indeed.
>The former isn't very helpful if I ever wish to dist or forw the email
>on. No message-id is a killer.
Meh, it saves a copy of the draft.
No alias expansion, and (in theory) no header strippage.
This preserves as much information as possible; potenti
Hi Jerrad,
> > Besides, I've always found fcc useless. It doesn't expand local
> > user names, e.g. `to: ralph' stays like that instead of becoming
> > `to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]', and there's no message-id which is
> > vital for
>
> Erm, it's not at all useless, you're misusing it. Fcc is for filin
>Besides, I've always found fcc useless. It doesn't expand local user
>names, e.g. `to: ralph' stays like that instead of becoming `to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]', and there's no message-id which is vital for
Erm, it's not at all useless, you're misusing it. Fcc is for filing a
local copy, it expects a f
Hi Paul,
> joel wrote:
> > 1) Some people have commented on the comp.mail.mh newsgroup that Bcc
> > and Dcc headers should not be removed before Fcc is processed, so
> > that the Fcc copy contains them. Since the default components has
> > Fcc: +outbox in it I'm inclined to agree. Does anyone dis
joel wrote:
> 1) Some people have commented on the comp.mail.mh newsgroup that Bcc and
>Dcc headers should not be removed before Fcc is processed, so that the
>Fcc copy contains them. Since the default components has
>Fcc: +outbox
>in it I'm inclined to agree. Does anyone disag
Joel Reicher wrote:
>2) I think the current CVS code should be released as 1.3. If nobody
> objects, I will change the version string to "1.3-RC1" and upload a
> 1.3-RC1 tarball. When all issues are worked out, I'll tag the code in
> CVS as RELEASE_1_3, change the version string to "1.3", and
Hi all,
Two things:
1) Some people have commented on the comp.mail.mh newsgroup that Bcc and
Dcc headers should not be removed before Fcc is processed, so that the
Fcc copy contains them. Since the default components has
Fcc: +outbox
in it I'm inclined to agree. Does anyone disagree?
10 matches
Mail list logo