Re: [Nmh-workers] 1.3 release and Dcc/Bcc behaviour

2007-03-30 Thread Jerry Peek
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

Re: [Nmh-workers] 1.3 release and Dcc/Bcc behaviour

2007-03-30 Thread Neil W Rickert
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

Re: [Nmh-workers] 1.3 release and Dcc/Bcc behaviour

2007-03-30 Thread Ralph Corderoy
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

Re: [Nmh-workers] 1.3 release and Dcc/Bcc behaviour

2007-03-30 Thread Jerrad Pierce
>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

Re: [Nmh-workers] 1.3 release and Dcc/Bcc behaviour

2007-03-30 Thread Ralph Corderoy
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

Re: [Nmh-workers] 1.3 release and Dcc/Bcc behaviour

2007-03-30 Thread Jerrad Pierce
>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

Re: [Nmh-workers] 1.3 release and Dcc/Bcc behaviour

2007-03-30 Thread Ralph Corderoy
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

Re: [Nmh-workers] 1.3 release and Dcc/Bcc behaviour

2007-03-30 Thread Paul Fox
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

Re: [Nmh-workers] 1.3 release and Dcc/Bcc behaviour

2007-03-30 Thread Peter Maydell
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

[Nmh-workers] 1.3 release and Dcc/Bcc behaviour

2007-03-30 Thread Joel Reicher
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?