[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 5322 group support

From: Ken Hornstein
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 5322 group support
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 10:33:16 -0500

>Then nmh is at fault AIUI;  there is no concept of hiding the recipients
>here, merely a group labelling of them.  It stops recipients replying to

By my count, it's 3 greybeards (Earl, Lyndon, and Robert) in the "it's
correct, leave it" camp, versus 1 in the "totally wrong" camp.  I'll let
you guys fight it out :-)  Personally, I'm on the side of "the behavior
makes sense, leave it as-is".

>The current behaviour should be solely achievable by
>    To: undisclosed-recipients:;
>    dcc: tom, dick, harry

Yeah, that's totally the same effect as the current implementation today.

>One of the nice things about MH/nmh is it's tried to follow the RFCs,
>e.g. Gmail still doesn't show Resent-* headers last time I looked.  I
>don't think we should deviate for this trivial case.  Is there a clue
>why the recipients are being removed in the change history?

No.  I actually went back and looked; this behavior existed in MH-5,
which by my reckoning was released in 1985; I lack the energy to
investigate further.  I thought there was something earlier, but I
couldn't find it.  I will note that Dcc support is a relatively new
feature compared to group address removal, and is not universally loved
by the greybeards:

revision 1.2
date: 1989/05/03 16:25:05;  author: sources;  state: Exp;  lines: +4 -2
add "Dcc:" header line.  This is basically a blind distribution copy.
addresses listed on Dcc: lines are put in the envelope only!
I don't intend to document this since Bcc: is the socially appropriate
header to use for such copies.

That's as far back as the files we have under revision control.  And just
for the record, my beard is starting to show a few streaks of grey :-)

I don't think there's any objection to documenting this behavior, is there?
I know, it's in the MH Book, but we should have a brief mention of this
in the base man pages.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]