On 06/01/15 20:14, Ludwig Hügelschäfer wrote: > On 06.01.15 19:23, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > >> (...) >> I think the right thing to do is to treat Bcc: recipients the same as >> the To: or Cc: recipients, whether that's with "convenient" settings or >> per-address rules. > >> I believe this is a closer match to most users' expectations of what >> should happen. > > ACK. And keeping it like the present implementation will produce user > errors, user questions and documentation needs. This can be easily avoided.
I'd agree with this approach. I never have need of BCC's but there are lots of scenarios in business / politics where a user might wish to keep recipients unaware of each other's existence. At present, a user's 'careless' click when writing an email could cause him some embarrassment. Philip
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ enigmail-users mailing list enigmail-users@enigmail.net To unsubscribe or make changes to your subscription click here: https://admin.hostpoint.ch/mailman/listinfo/enigmail-users_enigmail.net
