Package: reportbug Version: 3.8 Followup-For: Bug #297452 Looking at /usr/share/doc/reportbug/changelog.gz (and the code) the lack of Bcc is entirely intentional, if bizarre (why?). What irritated me more than a little is that the documentation is unchanged, so that I spent quite a while testing my spam filter (is it eating bug reports) and MTA (it is correctly set up for local delivery?) and finally reportbug (what is going on?) before finally noticing that the binary was dated about the same time as the last time I had a CC for a bug report.
If Bcc lines must be suppressed, please can we have a workaround and an explanation? Also, please update the docs, because this will cause great confusion otherwise. My irritation is bounded by the fact that since we're still in testing there's a certain "caveat downloador". If there's anything I can do to help fix the docs, do ask. -- Package-specific info: ** Environment settings: EDITOR="zile" VISUAL="emacsclient" EMAIL="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ** /home/rrt/.reportbugrc: mode standard -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-2-686 Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Versions of packages reportbug depends on: ii python2.3 2.3.5-1 An interactive high-level object-o -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
