On July 1, 2003 at 07:47, Jerry Peek wrote:
A lot of us use the "dcc:" header field. It acts like "bcc:" does on
most other MUAs. Is there any reason not to add a paragraph about it to
the send(1) manpage?
My Linux box is down right now, so I can't check this out, but here's a
new paragraph. (I guess "Dcc:" works as well as "dcc:", which is what I
use... but I'm not sure.) I'll include the existing "Bcc:" paragraph --
which, I think, the dcc info should follow:
----- snip ------
If a "Bcc:" field is encountered, its addresses will be used for
delivery, and the "Bcc:" field will be removed from the message sent to
sighted recipients. The blind recipients will receive an entirely new
message with a minimal set of headers. Included in the body of the
message will be a copy of the message sent to the sighted recipients.
If a "Dcc:" field is encountered, its addresses will be used for
delivery, and the "Dcc:" field will be removed from the message. The
blind recipients will receive the same message sent to the sighted
recipients.
----- snip ------
Comments? Votes?
+1
Including the additional note about the dangers of using dcc.
Personally, I use dcc when copying myself and bcc when copying
someone else. I personally dislike the bcc behavior of other MUAs
since they provide no indication to the receipient that they have
received a blind-carbon copy. I think the bcc behavior of MH/nmh
is what all MUAs should do.
Related comment: It may be worth considering making bcc MIME aware.
I.e. Have an option that for Bcc addresses, the mail message is wrapped
in a message/rfc822 media-type. This will be useful for bcc messages
that are mime encoded. If I remember correctly, if you bcc a mime
message, the bcc wrapping screws up the mime encoding.
--ewh