i've just raised bug https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?55700 and i'm working on a fix for this for debian. however, the best way forward isn't totally clear to me, hence this email. the issues that i'm trying to find good solutions for: 1. with sendmail/pipe the headers of what we pass to the mta must make sense for message routing, but the warning-encrusted modified draft baked for bccfil doesn't work because it has no to: and no bcc: headers, so the mta rejects that as unroutable. the original message that post also submits to the mta is left with bcc intact (and thus the mta does deliver it to the blind recipients), which duplicates the (currently nonfunctional) warning-encrusted message. so, in order to make bcc: be both blind and warning-encrusted as per the documentation we'd have to modify the original draft and nuke its bcc: header, and add a bcc: header to the bccfil draft. the patch that i've already attached to the bug report doesn't go that far, it makes bcc with sendmail/pipe work like dcc elsewhere. (it also doesn't contain any documentation updates.) my question: is that good enough? or should we aim for bcc working exactly the same regardless of mts? 2. the docs say dcc isn't supported for sendmail/pipe, which is ok. however, that fact is not overly visibly documented, which is slightly bad. what's quite bad in my opinion is that post with sendmail/pipe leaves the dcc: header in place and so that leaks to the actual recipients (and doesn't cause any message to be sent to the dcc: recipients). my question: wouldn't it be best if dcc in the sendmail/pipe case was handled by simply replacing the header with bcc: and letting the mta do its job? or should post with sendmail/pipe reject messages with dcc? regards az -- Alexander Zangerl + GPG Key 2FCCF66BB963BD5F + http://snafu.priv.at/ bash: syntax error near unexpected token `=:)'
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature
-- nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers