* Derek Martin <inva...@pizzashack.org> [07-27-10 18:56]: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 06:46:55PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > > > > Then the *problem* is with exim rather than the *expected* actions of > > mutt's config? > > It's an arguable point. And it's a long-known problem. > > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.exim.devel/98
I have read the 23 July 2004 referenced, and second page summary. I have no argument to right or wrong. But, to my recollection, sendmail was the *standard* to which the other mta's follow, ms aside (it follows no standards, not even it's own semi- standards). Postfix follows closely sendmail, although I find no configuration for removing bcc headers or from the sendmail stub postfix employs. The four usses of Bcc enumerated at the end of the second page reference, I have a problem agreeing with point (b). I believe that Bcc headers should be hidden/removed from posted email, but remain on the originators copy for reference. And I believe that this is the generally expected behavour of email systems, again ms aside. More about point (b), I cannot fathom a user being expected to continually alter the actions of his mua/msa/mta to achieve this action. I have employed mutt/postfix for somewhere between 13 and 15 years and have expected and realized that behavour. And until today had no reason to doubt it's expected result. So where does this leave us? And, is it only important to <5% of the users, as many using the non- standard methods of ms email systems do not even know of the ability to Bcc. My wife uses eudora which has the capability, cc/bcc, but probably does not know what they are or their function. -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org
