Subject: aliases

From: Brian Spooner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 06:50:51 -0500 (EST)

Can someone tell me what one has to do in pine to address a message to a
number of people without all the addressees being listed in the header of
each message?  i.e. the sort of thing that could be done by putting an
alias in /etc/aliases.  Is it possible for example to have pine read the
To: line of the header from a file?

brian spooner

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/pine/pine-info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Mats Dufberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 13:43:40 +0100 (CET)

> To: line of the header from a file?

Put yourself in TO and all recepients in BCC.

Mats

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mats Dufberg                                 [email-masked]
Blåarvsgränd 42                                    +46-8-38 48 59
SE-162 45 Vällingby, Sweden                       +46-70-258 2588

---

From: Tuka Mhane <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 09:43:32 -0800 (PST)

Hi,

Im using pc-pine for win ver 4.40 with SSL, build
13-Sep-2001. I use it to access a pop3 account
provided by my isp.

Since a few days ago, I have suddenly started getting
this error "no-op dead stream" on the status line,
after I enter the login name and passwd. And then pine
goes on to print "no folder opened" on the status
line.

What could be wrong ?
I can use my pop account using outlook express, so
probably nothing is wrong at my isp's end ?

Thanks,

Tuka

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
http://sports.yahoo.com
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/pine/pine-info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Ed Greshko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:27:21 +0800

> To: line of the header from a file?

IMHO, the best way to do this is to:

1.  Create an address book entry with the list of recipients.

2.  When addressing the mail use Crtl-R to bring up the "Rich Headers"
display.

3.  Place the name of your address book entry in the Lcc: field.

Ed

---

From: Leslie Fairall <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 23:19:27 -0500 (EST)

What is the difference between Bcc: and Lcc:?

---

From: "Ed Greshko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:27:57 +0800

With Lcc: you get the name of the distribution list you are sending to in the
To:
header.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leslie Fairall [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 12:19
> To: Ed Greshko
> Cc: Pine Discussion Forum
> Subject: RE: aliases
>
>

---

From: Jacob Morzinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 02:35:31 -0500

> What is the difference between Bcc: and Lcc:?

* Meta-answer:
Test either one before relying on it.

* Short answer:
Lcc is prettier, but Bcc is more likely to work.

* Long answer:
It's been a long time since I tested Lcc.  If I recall correctly, pine's 
"Lcc" header generates mail with a named group in the address field of 
the outgoing mail.  Problem is, "group" addresses are so seldom used 
that some sites stumble when dealing with mail addressed to named 
groups.  After being bitten once too often, I decided that I would never 
use group addresses.  I recommend Bcc.

---

From: "Ed Greshko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:49:56 +0800

> Lcc is prettier, but Bcc is more likely to work.

????

> use group addresses.  I recommend Bcc.

Not sure where you are getting your information.

The Lcc: is not much different than the Bcc:  That is, no routing address
information is held in the headers.  All the addresses go in the SMTP
envelope.  With the Lcc: you get some indication of who it is being sent
"To:".  If you use the Bcc: and put yourself in the To: field then people
can't sort the incoming emails properly.  They can also tend to ignore them
since the "To" isn't them.  The Lcc: gives an indication that it is a list and
not a person being sent to....

The obvious "draw-back" to using either of these two is that a reply won't
reach the people in the Lcc: or the Bcc:  But, that is to be expected and may
very well be the desired result.

One wonders why the "help" menu isn't consulted ...

                THE MESSAGE COMPOSER'S LCC FIELD

The "Lcc:" (List carbon copy) header is intended to be used when you wish
to send a message to a list of people but avoid having all of their
addresses visible, in order to reduce clutter when the message is
received.

It is similar to the "Bcc" (Blind carbon copy) header in that individual
addressees are hidden, but Lcc is designed to work specifically with
distribution lists you have created in your Pine Address Book. Placing
the nickname of the list on the Lcc line will result in the full name of
your Pine Address Book list being placed on the To: line of the message,
using a special notation that distinguishes it from a real address. You
must leave the To: line blank for your list name to appear there.

For example, if you have this list entered in your Address Book:

        largo         Key Largo List       DISTRIBUTION LIST:

        largo         Key Largo List       DISTRIBUTION LIST:
                                           [email-masked]
                                           [email-masked]
                                           [email-masked]
and you enter "largo" on the Lcc: line while composing a message, the
result is:

        To      : Key Largo List: ;
        Cc      :
        Bcc     :
        Fcc     : sent-mail
        Lcc     : Key Largo List <[email-masked]>,
                  [email-masked],
                  [email-masked]
        Subject :
Each recipient listed on the Lcc: line receives a copy of the message
without their address being visible (as though they were listed on the
ipient listed on the Lcc: line receives a copy of the message
without their address being visible (as though they were listed on the
Bcc: line). The colon-semicolon notation used to put the full-name of the
list on the To: line is a special address format that doesn't specify any
actual addressees, but does give some information to the recipients of
the message.

Note: if after entering an LCC, you delete the list name that is placed
on the To: line, then recipients will see

 To: Undisclosed recipients: ;
(or whatever string is defined in the "empty-header-message" variable)
just as in the BCC case.

For help with Lcc: field editing commands, check the Help for the To:
header.

---

From: Jacob Morzinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 03:07:39 -0500

Ed Greshko wrote:

> With the Lcc: you get some indication of who it is being sent
> can't sort the incoming emails properly.

Yes, yes.  You are providing fine elaboration.  I repeat my point: Lcc 
is prettier -- it formats the "To" header as an RFC[2]822 "group" 
address.  Read the RFC if you don't yet know what a "group" address is. 
  All sites should be able to handle group addresses.  Unfortunately, 
not all sites do.  I tired of arguing with postmasters, and gave up on 
using groups myself (and Lcc).  If Lcc works at your site feel free to 
use it; I'm just trying to warn you to keep an eye open for trouble, 
because it works less universally than Bcc does.

---

From: Mats Dufberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:15:27 +0100 (CET)

> use group addresses.  I recommend Bcc.

What it creates according to the help text that Ed Greshko cited is an
mailgroup with no mailaddreses in the TO field, which is fully in
accordans with RFC 2822, which defines the Internet mail message.
Furthermore, sendmail will enter such an empty group if the is no address
on TO, which means that it is far from being seldom used. It is also used
by the IETF for some mailing lists, and people on the lists used a variety
of mail clients, and I've seen no complaints on that.

I think it is safe to use the LCC solution in Pine, which I did not know
was there.

Mats

---

From: "Ed Greshko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:18:10 +0800

> If Lcc works at your site feel free to

Actually, it works "exactly" the same as the Bcc does.

I would normally caution against using Bcc:...

If you use Bcc: but forget to add a To: then you will find that certain
sendmail implementations will reveal all of the addresses in the Bcc:!!  This,
of course, defeats the whole purpose.

Ed

---

From: Steve Hubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:08:16 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

I can confirm what Jacob says. I have definitely encountered sendmail
configs which choked on the pine style Lcc To header. And we both
understand that we're talking about group addresses which contain no
actual mailboxes between the `:' and `;'. The header parsing rules just
didn't handle the group syntax. An even more likely place for the failure
is if you set up pine to use "sendmail -t" to send messages. In that case
there are some sendmail configs which will reject the mail because there
are no valid addresses on the To line. That's actually what prompted us to
change from sendmail -t to sendmail -bs as the default, though there were
other good reasons as well.

Since sendmail started generating such addresses I think it has become
less and less common for these parsing failures to happen.

-- 
Steve Hubert <[email-masked]>
Networks and Distributed Computing, Univ. of Washington, Seattle

---

From: "Ed Greshko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:48:18 +0800

Steve,

[snip]
> That's actually what prompted us to

Interesting.  I'd seen cases were different sendmails choked on different
things.
Maybe that was the reason I switched 2 years ago to using an SMTP host as
opposed to calling sendmail.  :-)  It seems like using the SMTP protocol is
less likely to cause problems.

> less and less common for these parsing failures to happen.

While there may be some older versions of sendmail around which still suffer
from this, I think going the SMTP host route would get around it.  So, I still
think Lcc: is preferred over Bcc:.  I'd rather have it choke (and a
workaround) than to have sendmail reveal all the Bcc's cause I forgot to add
the To:.

Ed