Re: [Nmh-workers] Question about RFC 2822: "A.1.3. Group addresses".

[nmh]

Hi Ken:

On Tue 10/10/17 16:28 -0400 Ken Hornstein wrote:
> >For clarity,
> >I decided to use a "mail group", for example "My Group" as in this 3 line
> >body less test draft:
> >    
> >    From: my_from_alias_here
> >    To: My Group: address@hidden ;                                           
> >                      
> >    Fcc: sent                           
> >
> >Of course it bounces, but in the bounce "address@hidden"
> >is stripped out of the To header.  
> 
> Well, this is expected NMH behavior (this behavior has existed in MH as
> far back as it existed, AFAICT).  This happens in post(8) (if putadr() sees
> that you are in a group, it simply won't output the address).
> 
> So, to answer your questions:
> 
> >Is this behavior of stripping the addresses out of the header per spec?
> 
> This is outside of the specification, AFAICT, because this is really
> an internal nmh issue; the relevant specifications only detail the format
> of email messages, and nmh conforms to those.
> 
> >Is there any syntax that stops the removal?
> 
> Looking at the code .... no.
> 
> Some general comments: there is no special meaning to "Undisclosed
> recipients"; the RFC uses that as an example, but you could put any
> group name in there in theory (in practice, though, if you try to do
> that you'll get a bunch of bounces from spam filters, sigh).
> 
> And, really, a better question is ... what the heck are you trying to
> do, honestly??

I know it's a bit silly, but I wanted 
for example a header like this as seen by a recipient:

    To: Membership Committee: address@hidden, address@hidden ;

to make it clear address@hidden, and address@hidden are both in the
"Membership Committee".

> I have never really understood what the purpose of the group syntax is;
> I mean, yeah, I've read the RFCs about them, but they deal in kinda vague
> high-level concepts; I don't really understand how to translate those
> words into actual code.  What the original authors of MH decided was that
> if you see the group syntax in a draft file, assume the author wanted to
> obscure the recipients of the message.  In theory we could come up with
> some syntax that prevented that from happening, but I for one would like
> to understand what the goal is before we made such a change.

It would be interesting to see what other mail clients, like mutt for
example do.  

Thanks! - this is very low priority of course; more of a curiosity.

--
Also glad the list is still alive!  Looking forward to the final release
of 1.7.

--Tom