Hi Werner, On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 02:10:28PM +0200, Werner Koch wrote: > Hi, > > I only had a brief look into this thread but stumbled upon this: > > > *7: BCCs should be hidden recipients. > > [BCCs shold be separate mails of course.] > > Using a hidden recipient is a major hassle for everyone with more than a > single key and in particular when several smartcards. As a BCC > recipient you would be forced to do trial decryption and swap smartcards > over and over. This is the very reason why I once introduced the > --skip-hidden-recipients optin and franly I use it for years now and > disable it only when needed.
Thanks for the feedback! That would be my favourite approach as a user, although as a programmer I wanted to avoid it, since it would need big work. Richard, I guess we should first change neomutt(1) to send separate mails for BCC in non-encrypted mode, which will already be a pain, and then probably the encrypted thing will follow. AFAIK, it's sending a single mail, isn't it? That would already be an improvement, because at the moment, since it sends a single message, I see no Bcc: field when receiving a Bcc message, which makes me wonder why I receive them. Having a separate mail in which the Bcc field is set would be a nicer UX. I'll put this thing at the end of the queue of things I want to do. In the meantime, users will have to live with the fact that BCC encrypted mail leaks the BCCs. :-) > Salam-Shalom, Have a lovely day! Alex > Werner > > -- > The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that > refuse military service. - A. Einstein -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
