Subject: Possible bug?

From: Shoeless in San Jose <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 18:31:50 -0800 (PST)

I've noticed since I started using Lcc that it works fine as long as I
don't delete any addresses from the list after I've typed the nickname of
the list in the Lcc line and then hit <enter>.  In other words, once I've
done that and leave it alone, no problems.  However, if I go back to that
list in the Lcc field and take out at least one address, once I move the
cursor to either the To line or into the Body, the To line changes from
displaying *only* the list name followed by the :; to the list name
followed by -- followed by ;:  An example is below to clarify this:

If I enter 'All' in the Lcc field and hit <enter>, I get this for the To
line (I've also included the first line of the Lcc field):

To      : All: ;
Lcc     : All -- Beavis and Butthead <[email-masked]>

If I delete one or more lines from the Lcc field, then move out of that
field, I get this:

To      : All -- Beavis and Butthead: ;
Lcc     : All -- Beavis and Butthead <[email-masked]>,

Note how the To line shows the name of the first person in the list.

Does anyone else have this, or is there some problem with my setup?  I'll
include the configuration if you need more details.

Greg
[email-masked]

---

From: "Adam H. Kerman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 22:58:49 -0600 (CST)

>Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.971201182210.2141G-100000@slip-3>
                       ^^^^
>From: Shoeless in San Jose <[email-masked]>

>Note how the To line shows the name of the first person in the list.

This was a problem with the original version 3.95. If the full name of a
distribution list was blank, the full name of the first person on the list
would appear in the To header. There was a patch to 3.95 to correct this.

But, your message ID indicates you are using 3.96.

Sure, report the bug. Make sure you describe your hardware and version of Unix
that you are running.

---

From: Shoeless in San Jose <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 23:34:28 -0800 (PST)

> But, your message ID indicates you are using 3.96.

Oops, forgot that very important bit of info, but fortunately you knew how
to extract it.

> Sure, report the bug. Make sure you describe your hardware and version
> of Unix that you are running. 

Yep, I checked just now...the full name isn't blank on the list, but I
still get that problem, so I'll send it off to the bug-zappers and see if
they have a clue.  More annoying than anything; nothing I can't live with
for now, but at least I'd like to know that it gets cleared up by 4.00.

Greg
[email-masked]