Hi, I think this goes into the area of the dont-reveal-bcc.patch/write_bcc.patch
Debian and Gentoo both have this patch, which also contains some of its rationales: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=467432 http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/3337 (dead, is there a way to find its contents) The patch at some point in Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=28;filename=write_bcc.patch.1.5.20-2;att=1;bug=467432 The patch at this point for 1.12.2 in Gentoo: https://sourceforge.net/p/gentoomuttpatches/code/ci/mutt-1.10/tree/gentoo/0003-dont-reveal-bcc.patch As can be read from the Debian bug, the original rationale was to be able to keep Bcc-header in the Fcc copy, but not reveal the Bcc header to the MTA, so whatever policy/decision it has, it can never spill it to the recipients. Thanks, Fabian On 01-11-2019 06:42:33 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I'm looking for a bit of history and discussion of the correct behavior > of MTAs with respect to Bcc headers. > > Ticket #185 <https://gitlab.com/muttmua/mutt/issues/185> asserts that > Courier MTA doesn't remove the Bcc header when recipients are passed on > the command line. I'm currently not in a position to verify this > behavior, so I'm assuming the ticket is correct. > > It looks like Mutt provides $write_bcc, which allows the removal of the > Bcc header from the message. However, I believe this will also remove > it from the Fcc copy. > > The ticket asks if there is a way to turn off passing the recipients on > the command line. I'm wondering if this would be a generally useful > option. > > Thanks for any advice or input! > > -- > Kevin J. McCarthy > GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
