Mark Jared Nightingale writes on 13 November 1996 at 15:00:42
[...]
Seems like a HUGE HOLE to me. Makes me wonder how so many are operating
with procmail today. When more correspondents begin to use BCC for privacy
reasons, they're gonna get a BIG surprise when all those procmailers out
This is starting to get off the topic of "procmail", but...
I've been using BCC for years (and procmail for almost as long) and
really don't see this as too much of a problem. With "procmail" it
means that BCC'd mail usually falls through most of my sorting rules
and ends up in my INBOX (DEFAULT) which is the same place that most
normal mail addressed to me ends up as well.
I'm not exactly sure how you envision "more correspondents begin to
use BCC for privacy reasons". When I send messages, I use BCC mostly
for one of two reasons
* to suppress a long To:/CC: header - mostly when sending messages
to a large group of unrelated people
* for FYI types of things
As for sorting these types of messages with procmail, as has been
pointed out, it can be difficult. One technique I use for things like
auto-replies is to check to be sure the message has been addressed
specifically to me.
For example, say funnyman(_at_)some(_dot_)where(_dot_)org sends out jokes to a
bunch of
his friends via BCC, but you and funnyman also send email to each
other on a regular basis. You could filter the jokes and other such
messages as follows
:0:
* ! ^TOme(_at_)mydomain(_dot_)com
* From:[ ]*funnyman(_at_)some(_dot_)where(_dot_)org
funnyman-bcc
(yes, the regexps should be "mydomain\.com", and you might want to
check both "From:" and "Reply-To:"). Normal mail between the two of
you won't get sorted by this recipe because you will be listed in the
To: header causing "! ^TO" to fail.
Dan
------------------- message is author's opinion only ------------------
J. Daniel Smith <DanS(_at_)bristol(_dot_)com>
http://www.bristol.com/~DanS
Bristol Technology B.V. +31 33 450 50 50, ...51 (FAX)
Amersfoort, the Netherlands {info,jobs}(_at_)bristol(_dot_)com