I agree with all of this and it's no big issue for me since this is my
home machine :-) of course one argument that could be raised is
"sendmail does it" ....
--
Alan Thew alan.thew@???
Computing Services,University of Liverpool Fax: +44 151 794-4442
On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Philip Hazel wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Piete Brooks wrote:
>
>> > The RFC says that Bcc: shouldn't be passed on to primary recipients.
>> > If exim passes it on (as it does) then it isn't following the RFC.
>>
>> exim has no concept of a "primary recipient" *UNLESS* it has been given the
>> "-t" HACK to tell it to generate the recipients.
>
>Quite. The RFC in question is RFC 822. This is the definition of the
>message formats the MUAs generate. Exim is written to RFC 821. That does
>indeed say that the messages it is concerned with are in 822 format, but
>it doesn't require the MTA to mess with them, and indeed discourages it.
>This Bcc stuff is all an MUA function.
>
>> If it is working as a true MTA, it cannot correlate actual recipients with RFC
>> 822 headers.
>
>Absolutely.
>
>> > It should assume that if there is a Bcc: header then the client wants
>> > it to go out
>
>Why? If a message comes in from some random other MTA, how can Exim tell
>what the sender wants?
>
>You could perhaps argue that it should take them out of all locally-
>submitted messages, but that then takes away control from the MUA. It
>also doesn't do anything for those who run their MUAs on their desktop
>PCs rather than on the MTA machine.
>
>It all feels like a rathole to me.
>
>--
>Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
>ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
>
>
>--
>*** Exim information can be found at http://www.exim.org/ ***
>
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
