On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:47:56PM EDT, J Moore wrote: > On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 03:55:27PM -0500, the unit calling itself Michael D > Schleif wrote: > > > > What can be done about this? > > > > > > unset write_bcc > > > > Yes, I finally found this, and several archived posts from this and > > other lists, discussing this matter. Thank you. > > > > This is not an acceptable solution for me, because it also removes bcc > > headers from that copy filed away in record==sent. All of the other > > MUA's I've tested strip the bcc header on outgoing messages, but retain > > the original bcc header for the archived sent message -- except mutt. > > I use mutt and sendmail on OpenBSD. I became alarmed after reading this > (oh my god! all those people saw my bcc's :) so I sent a test message > to myself at another address. I'm glad to say that there was nothing in > the headers to indicate there was a Bcc: addressee. In fact, there's a > Bcc: addressee in this message if anyone cares to check this out. > > Anyway - the point of this is that it would appear the fault lies with > exim, not mutt. Yeah, this is known Exim behavior (as the millions of threads on the topic have already pointed out). The Exim guys think it's right. We can't prove 'em wrong. Sendmail wasn't made by the Exim devs, so it's "normal" ;-P - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgp74zyuAig5K.pgp
Description: PGP signature