[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: FCC behavior for BCC proposal
From: |
Chad Walstrom |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: FCC behavior for BCC proposal |
Date: |
Sun, 08 Jan 2006 15:11:56 -0600 |
Tethys <address@hidden> wrote:
> Arguably it might. The original recipient would then be able to see
> that the original message had been sent to others via bcc. They
> wouldn't be able to tell *which* others, but that's not always
> relevant. In many cases, they could take an educated guess.
You're pretty much forced to annotate the original message with some
information, given MH's message and folder naming conventions. You
could annotate the original message with a path name to a generic
metadata file: "X-MH-Metadata: PATH". You may need to rename, link,
and unlink the metadata file when commands called for these actions on
the message.
--
Chad Walstrom <address@hidden> http://www.wookimus.net/
assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
- [Nmh-workers] new stuff for 2.0 (FCC behavior for BCC proposal), bergman, 2006/01/03
- [Nmh-workers] Re: FCC behavior for BCC proposal, Bill Wohler, 2006/01/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: FCC behavior for BCC proposal, bergman, 2006/01/04
- [Nmh-workers] Re: FCC behavior for BCC proposal, Bill Wohler, 2006/01/07
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: FCC behavior for BCC proposal, Valdis . Kletnieks, 2006/01/07
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: FCC behavior for BCC proposal, Nathan Bailey, 2006/01/07
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: FCC behavior for BCC proposal, Valdis . Kletnieks, 2006/01/07
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: FCC behavior for BCC proposal, Chad Walstrom, 2006/01/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: FCC behavior for BCC proposal, Tethys, 2006/01/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: FCC behavior for BCC proposal,
Chad Walstrom <=