Re: [Exim] The Bcc Issue

On 8/13/2004 15:48, "Jeremy Harris" <jgh@???> wrote:

> Philip Hazel wrote:
>> The Bcc Issue: posted to the exim-users, exim-dev, and ietf-822 mailing
>> lists
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> The issue of who handles Bcc: header lines has again been raised, and I
>> am seeking opinions as widely as I can. The requirement is
>> straightforward: non-Bcc recipients of a message should not see the
>> addresses of any Bcc recipients, that is, their copies of the message
>> should not contain Bcc: header lines.
>
> I can't actually see much use for the bcc: header line.
>
> That is, I think a transmitting MUA should accept a bcc: directive
> (but not create a bcc: header, only an envelope rcpt to).
> A receiving MUA could infer a BCC, I suppose (but I don't really care).
> I don't think an MTA should be required to note a bcc: header in
> any way. It might be a nicety, for dealing with broken MUAs (mutt?),
> to provide the option of stripping it - but no cleverness needed.

The problem is a little deeper than that, as there are people who WANT to
see a BCC: header in mail that reaches them because of BCC. One reason
being that they don't want to accidentally reveal their presence on the
message by doing a reply to all.

In the present state of things, these people clearly have to train their
senders to use some small subset of available MUAs and send from suitable
venues. (mutt and ????; sites that let the BCC through)

It will be interesting to see Philip's summary of the discussion that
develops on the ietf-822 mailing list. (My guess is that 3 or 4 "only right
way to do it" ideas appear.)

--John