On 1 Sep 2005 at 15:08, Jim Pazarena wrote about
"[exim] The Bcc Issue (revisited)":
| I recently had someone complain that he sent (from micros$ft machine) an
| important BCC'd message where some people could see the BCC recipients.
Just the BCC recipients.
| I was on that recipient list, and indeed using Thunderbird *I* saw all
| the names.
So you were also a BCC recpient.
| He was slightly embarrassed and considers it the ISP's fault.
A common reaction. User's have a hard time accepting that what they
think they know can be wrong.
| I've read up within this group's postings, and see that much discussion
| went on about whose's responsibility it is to NOT post the BCC's;
|
| Aside from all the previous debate, is there any "harm" in having exim
| remove BCC lines while in the delivery transport?
Depends on your definition of "harm". It won't affect message
delivery, obviously. It may be confusing to some BCC recipients to
not see how/why they got a copy of the message. Some senders may
have reasons to want the BCC recipients to see each other.
Bottom line, according to RFC it is up to the MUA how the BCC header
is handled in the BCC-recipients copy of the message (non-BCC
recipients are not allowed to see a BCC header in any case). Good
MUAs will have configuration options delegating that choice to the
user. Users who knowingly set such options will be rightly surprised
if they don't work as advertised (because the MTA intervened).
Whether that "harm" outweighs the "good" of matching the (incorrect)
expectations of many unknowlegable users is a value judgement only
you can make, based on your situation and user base.
- Fred
