I wrote: > When I use Bcc with exmh, the recipient receives a *text* copy of my > entire message -- including all headers, MIME parts, and attachments. > Most are completely dumbfounded by this and unable to make sense of > the message. I would think that the only difference that should occur > between a Bcc and an original is that the recipient's address not > appear in the message headers and be used only for the SMTP operation. > Am I missing something?
Ken Hornstein replied: > Now, solutions? There are two obvious ones. First, if you add the > -mime switch to send, you will use MIME encapsulation instead of the > default encapsulation (it will send someone a message/digest which > contains the original message as a message/rfc822). This preserves the > original message MIME structure, and a compliant MIME mailer should > be able to handle this just fine. Secondly, you can always use "Dcc" > instead of "Bcc", which will behave like the Bcc the rest of the world > uses. Thanks, Ken, and Robert, too, for the detailed explanation. Perhaps some of this could find its way into the exmh help screens. I'll try both of those ideas the next time I want to send a blind copy. -- Dave Close, Compata, Irvine CA "If I seem unduly clear to you, d...@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 you must have misunderstood dhcl...@alumni.caltech.edu what I said." -- Alan Greenspan _______________________________________________ Exmh-users mailing list Exmh-users@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/exmh-users
