Package: mutt Severity: important Version: 1.5.18-6+b1 Hi,
Glad that the docs are updated [1] to reflect that exim4 does not strip Bcc headers (which I just confirmed with a field test of just under 200 people who are now pissed to have their email addresses published...), but I would still appreciate it if the default configuration would work. The arguments that were posted after #304718 was closed [2] actually still apply. Considering that people really expect their Bcc to work, and making it not work is quite a critical failure with all sorts of privacy issues, I would really like to see a solution for this. The obvious solution would be to unset write_bcc again, also considering that it is not at all clear whose task removing Bcc headers really is. Saying exim or the MTA should do this is fine from a theoretical point of view, but as long as they're not doing it (and not doing it intentionally, see [3] and [4]) In cases like these, I'd rather have a default setting that does double work in some cases, than a setting that might not remove the Bcc headers in some cases... I understand that it makes sense to stick to the upstream default configuration in this case, but perhaps this should be taken up with upstream as well? Gr. Matthijs [1]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=474194 [2]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=304718#66 [3]: http://www.exim.org/lurker/message/20040818.103822.955b3e9f.en.html [4]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=485751
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
