On July 1, 2003 at 00:17, Bill Wohler wrote: > I think a Fcc out of the box is entirely appropriate for new users. The > Dcc usage that Earl suggests is a little more advanced, and is typically > used with procmail which is even more advanced (although it is > absolutely necessary these days). And remember that Dcc is still > undocumented and thus shouldn't be added to the default files.
I never recommended that dcc should be in any default files. I just explained why I choose to use it over fcc. > I've been using "Fcc: +out" for years. Inevitably, I get a "I lost your > mail, please resend" at least once a month, and I often remind myself > what I said. Perhaps Earl hasn't quite hit the magic-40 senility barrier > yet ;-). > > While I use +out, I think +outbox is more MH-like than +sent-mail and > would vote for +outbox for the default and may well edit my own > components file accordingly now that I'm thinking of it. After some thought, and reading the responses, I no longer have objections to it. As for the name, it should be "outbox" (with a lowercase 'o') since it complements the default name of "inbox" used when incorporating new mail. The only potential confusion for new users about "Fcc: +outbox" is that when they see it the first time when composing a message, they may be confused on exactly what that means. Other MUAs do the copying of sent mail "behind the scenes". There is no explicit indication during message composition that a copy of the message will be filed when sent (it is a general setting of the MUA). If you want to truly mirror the behavior of other MUAs, the filing into the outbox would be done by send(1). For example, a .mh_profile would have: send: -fcc +outbox When nmh if first initialized for a user, this could be a default .mh_profile setting. Either way, being a more advanced user, I do not care, but I think it worth pointing out some behavioral issues with a default Fcc: in components and how it compares with other MUAs. --ewh
