On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, J.R. Van Valen wrote:
> on local deliveries, the bcc header line is not removed yet on remote
> deliveries it is.
The *only* time Exim removes a bcc line is when it is called with -t.
This is the correct behaviour. If a message arrives by any other means,
any bcc line is left alone. Management of bcc lines is the job of the
MUA, not the MTA. When Exim is called with -t, it is doing some of the
work of the MUA - namely, creating a message envelope - which is why it
is right for it to remove the bcc in that case.
If you read the RFCs about bcc, you'll see that it is quite legitimate
for them to appear in messages. One of the scenarios, for example, is a
message sent to A, B, and C, and bcc'd to D, E, and F. The copy that
goes to the "visible" recipients has no bcc header, but the copy that
goes to the "invisible" recipients does. I don't know that anyone
actually does this, but it is quite reasonable.
Finally, a message may have no To: or Cc: header, but it must have a
recipient header according to RFC 822. An empty Bcc: is permitted,
whereas empty To: and Cc: header lines are not.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
