>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Woodhouse [mailto:dwmw2@infradead.org]
>
>Neither. Under normal circumstances _NO_ MTA will look at the addresses
>in the To: Cc: and Bcc: headers of the email. Those are purely
>cosmetic.
>
>Consider the following input to your first Exim:
>
> MAIL FROM:<someform@yourwebdomain>
> RCPT TO:<arecipient@anotherdomain>
> RCPT TO:<brecipient@anotherdomain>
> RCPT TO:<crecipient@yetanotherdomain>
> DATA
> To: Complete lies here <SomeFakeAddress@???>
> Cc: More lies here <AnotherFakeAddress@???>
> Bcc: Even more lies here <Fake@???>
>
>...
>
>That will get sent on _only_ to the three addresses given in the
>'RCPT TO:' commands, and _not_ to any of the addresses listed in the
>cosmetic 'To:' 'Cc:' or 'Bcc:' headers. The Bcc header will _not_ be
>stripped. Your first Exim is likely to send it to the second
>public-facing Exim as configured, in a single SMTP transaction with
>multiple 'RCPT TO:' commands just as shown above.
>
>Your second Exim is likely to make two SMTP connections to deliver the
>mail. One to the MX host for 'anotherdomain', over which it
>will deliver
>the mail with two 'RCPT TO' commands for the two recipients at that
>domain, and one connection to 'yetanotherdomain' to deliver to
>the third listed recipient.
Excellent explanation - I had misunderstood the status of the To and Cc
and so on. Of course; all that matters is the RCPT TO fields.. In that
case, the delivery process is handled with maximum parsimony with each
MTA making as few SMTP transactions as possible so that the mails fan
out in a tree-pattern (I had feared a star pattern).
>
>I was going to explain this in more detail last time but after going
>back to your original message to reply, I decided I couldn't
>be bothered
>to help you because your pointless and idiotic disclaimer offended me.
>Having seen how tenuous a grasp SWX has on legal matters relating to
>email, I would never want to deal with them. Seriously, if your company
>is so clueless they insist on adding such crap, get a webmail
>account or something.
I guess my personal disclaimer, disclaiming the official disclaimer
didn't cut any ice... I'm sorry about the disclaimer - yes, it's
pointless, yes, it's annoying, but unfortunately, I'm just a grunt and
"They" have decided it's a good idea. Most companies are maximally
paranoid nowadays and, as you're no doubt aware, stick these stupid
"disclaimers" on at the outgoing gateway.
Rgds,
Owen Boyle
Disclaimer: Any disclaimer attached to this message may be ignored.
>
>--
>dwmw2
>
>
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.
If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender urgently
and then immediately delete the message and any copies of it from your
system. Please also immediately destroy any hardcopies of the message.
You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print,
or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient.
The sender's company reserves the right to monitor all e-mail
communications through their networks. Any views expressed in this
message are those of the individual sender, except where the message
states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the
views of the sender's company.
