Re: bug#1787: mutt-1.5.5.1i: Mutt does not remove the Bcc header
On 2004-02-11 23:43:07 +0000, Paul Walker wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 12:20:54AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > No, it does not work as expected by default with exim (which does
> > exactly what the RFC says).
>
> Do exim and sendmail do the same thing?
Well, with the given options, they both take the addresses from the
arguments. Now, I don't know what sendmail does with the Bcc header.
AFAIK, the RFCs don't say that it may be removed or modified by a
MTA, unless when "generating SMTP commands from RFC 822 headers"
(see RFC 2821, Appendix B). RFC 2822 even suggests that it wouldn't
be correct if a MTA removed the Bcc header, as providing such a
header may be voluntary (see RFC 2822 Section 3.6.3). So, even if
sendmail removes the Bcc header, this may be regarded as a bug...
perhaps unless the sendmail behavior is documented.
> Either way, doing something which you know will have the effect of
> breaking previously working configurations when there's no
> particularly good reason for doing so just seems perverse to me.
First, there's a good reason to change the write_bcc default value or
behavior (and it's a privacy -- and possibly security -- reason, so
that's quite important). Then this will break the configuration only
on systems that are incorrectly configured (if not broken).
> > At least there should be a big warning if the default is not changed.
>
> Most people never read the default config file, you should know that. :)
The warning should be displayed when starting Mutt so that every one
can see it.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> - 100%
validated (X)HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International
des Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc.
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA