Philip wrote:
>
> but I can see that for a mailing list it may not be good. I didn't think
> mailing lists worked this way, as having hundreds or even thousands of
> arguments to a command sounds a little dodgy to me. However, clearly it
> is being used.
Smartlist has two distribution options (well 3, it also has a
poor-man's sendmail option). It can either use a standard :include:
alias and send to that, or it will use a function called choplist to
call sendmail directly. Choplist will, based on configured options,
chop the distribution list into pieces, organized roughly by host
domain, and call a number of sendmails in parallell to ship off the
pieces.
I will add an option to cause Exim always to add an empty
> bcc: option instead of to: (with resent- if necessary). Will this make
> things OK for you?
I'm still a little fuzzy. Let me see if I understand what exim
currently does in the case of Resent- headers: If any Resent- header
exists and if there is no Resent-to:, Resent-cc:, nor Resent-bcc:,
then exim adds a Resent-to: with the contents of the envelope. You
propose instead that an empty Resent-bcc: be added.
If I my understanding is correct, then yes, that would work great.
In the meantime, if you can arrange that the input
> message already contains an empty resent-bcc: header, Exim should leave
> it alone.
SmartList currently adds a To: Multiple Recipents of <list> line. The
optional modification supplied with SmartList is to have it add a
Resent-to: Multiple Recipients of <list> line. This currently works
great for me, but I'm still in testing mode with my list, so am
curious if Stephen has found other problems.
--
Michelle Dick artemis@??? East Palo Alto, CA
