On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 12:30:59PM +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
Does anybody know the reason of this change?
The most recent discussion on mutt-dev was <https://marc.info/?l=mutt-dev&m=146942930418541&w=2>. The issue is contentious, and there are arguments on both sides.
In this case, the comments by active developers seemed to be in consensus that prompting if Fcc fails afterwards is a reasonable compromise.
Another reason was the implementation of Protected Headers. The current mechanism supporting $fcc_attach and $fcc_clear already went through gymnastics to transform the message, save to Fcc, and back out those changes for sending. The introduction of Protected Headers made backing out changes substantially more difficult without breaking cryptographic signatures.
-- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
