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
them.
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.
/JLR
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.
--Ken
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers