On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 07:14:16PM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > * Derek Martin <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2005-10-14 11:48 -0400]: > > So the bottom line is users should unset write_bcc if they don't want > > the Bcc headers to appear in the message, and I think probably that > > should be the default in Mutt, since the average user will not even > > know what MTA they are using, never mind how it behaves WRT Bcc > > headers, and write_bcc=no is by far the safest default. > > The problem with unsetting write_bcc is IIRC that then the header > won't appear in the fcc folder. And sometimes it's good to be able to > lookup who got the mail via Bcc. I totally agree... but the only way to solve this without also possibly compromising the privacy which the Bcc is supposed to afford, is to have mutt treat the fcc differently (i.e. write the Bcc line regardless of $write_bcc when writing the fcc). At the moment, it is not capable of doing that, IIUC. Now that I think about it, I believe that is the "correct" behavior which mutt should exhibit. If I have the time this weekend, I'll hack up a quick patch to make mutt do this. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank the spammers.
Attachment:
pgpncwcN3uYFd.pgp
Description: PGP signature