On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 07:24:43AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > Please explain "to-field isn't correct" and site rfc's supporting your > "supposition". > "Correct" was not quite the right word. What I wanted to say is, that the to-field ideally should present the address of the recipient an not "undisclosed recipient" even if this is conform to rfc #idunno.
> > Maybe someone shows up with a clean solution. > > You have been offered several. Perhaps you should do some > investigation to educate yourself rather than placing the onus on > "someone". The provided mutt documentation is *very* good. I'm sorry. That was not meant to be an insult. I am not a native speaker of English and was not aware of the subtle meaning of "someone". -- Benjamin Eckenfels OpenPGP Key id: CF56E489 Key fingerprint = 386D CBE1 0833 4C12 2871 F51E 839D 18EF CF56 E489 Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCF56E489
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
