Re: nmh query

[David Levine]

Robert writes:

> At least one recipient field used to be required, when Bcc is the only one,
> it had to be be retained (it didn't need to, and shouldn't, contain any
> addresses, but the field had to remain).   This requirement seems to have
> been deleted, and now a message with no recipient fields is OK, but for
> compat with older MUAs (potentially even MTAs) it is still a good idea to
> include an empty Bcc: field when there are no To or Cc fields.

Thanks for that explanation.  nmh does retain the (always blank) BCC: in the 
blind copies.

Valdis, the non-blind message does not retain any Bcc fields, so no leak there.

I included the following in this message draft:

Bcc: address@hidden,
     Robert Elz <address@hidden>,
     "Valdis Kl=?utf-8?Q?ē?=tnieks" <address@hidden>

I'd be interested to see how much of that makes it through to each of you.

David