[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 5322 group support
From: |
Ralph Corderoy |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 5322 group support |
Date: |
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:47:19 +0000 |
Hi Ken,
> To: groupname: a, b, c;
>
> Now the RFCs are a bit vague on what this means. RFC 5322, Section
> 3.4 says in part:
>
> When it is desirable to treat several mailboxes as a single unit
> (i.e., in a distribution list), the group construct can be used.
> The group construct allows the sender to indicate a named group of
> recipients.
>
> Ok, fine. I've never seen a MUA actually treat those as a single
> unit, and I don't even know what that would mean from a MUA's
> perspective.
I think it's purely a presentational hint by the author that
To: cow-orkers: tom, dick, harry; xyzzy
can be so grouped and recipients understand and see those three are
under one umbrella with xyzzy separate. Receiving
To: cow-orkers: ; xyzzy
as nmh here dishes up, is very wrong.
> To: undisclosed recipients:;
The author should have explictly written this empty group in this case.
> The way nmh deals with this is to handle the second case.
> Specifically, if you provide something like this:
>
> To: list: a, b, c;
>
> When post runs the email will be _sent_ to a, b, and c, but the
> headers will look like this:
>
> To: list:;
Then nmh is at fault AIUI; there is no concept of hiding the recipients
here, merely a group labelling of them. It stops recipients replying to
them.
> - Should we leave the current behavior? It's been this way forever
> and I think it's the most useful behavior for dealing with groups, but
> I just want to be sure everyone is on the same page. It doesn't seem
> to be documented anywhere (but it is mentioned in the MH book).
The current behaviour should be solely achievable by
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
dcc: tom, dick, harry
One of the nice things about MH/nmh is it's tried to follow the RFCs,
e.g. Gmail still doesn't show Resent-* headers last time I looked. I
don't think we should deviate for this trivial case. Is there a clue
why the recipients are being removed in the change history?
Cheers, Ralph.
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 5322 group support, (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 5322 group support, Robert Elz, 2013/12/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 5322 group support, Ken Hornstein, 2013/12/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 5322 group support, Ralph Corderoy, 2013/12/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 5322 group support, P Vixie, 2013/12/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 5322 group support, Ken Hornstein, 2013/12/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 5322 group support, Ralph Corderoy, 2013/12/06
Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 5322 group support,
Ralph Corderoy <=
Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 5322 group support, David Levine, 2013/12/03
Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 5322 group support, David Levine, 2013/12/03