jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se (Jacob Palme) wrote on 23.01.01 in
<p05010407b6938a14a50e(_at_)[130(_dot_)237(_dot_)150(_dot_)141]>:
I am not sure if this is really correct, according to RFC822
each Bcc recipient should see its own name (and possibly also
other Bcc recipients) in a "Bcc" header in the mail.
That is *not* what the standard says.
Below is the text in RFC822 on the Bcc field, and which
explains the procedure which many mailers do not adhere to:
4.5.3. BCC / RESENT-BCC
This field contains the identity of additional recipients of
the message. The contents of this field are not included in
copies of the message sent to the primary and secondary reci-
pients. Some systems may choose to include the text of the
"Bcc" field only in the author(s)'s copy, while others may
also include it in the text sent to all those indicated in the
"Bcc" list.
That is, either send the original Bcc field to only the Bcc recipients, or
else do not send it to anyone. Which captures the two most common ways of
implementing it.
The new msgfmt standard, which soon will replace RFC822,
accepts the existing practice by allowing it as one new
way of handling the "Bcc" header. Below is the text in
the new msgfmt standard:
The "Bcc:" field (where the "Bcc" means "Blind Carbon Copy") contains
addresses of recipients of the message whose addresses are not to be
revealed to other recipients of the message. There are three ways in
which the "Bcc:" field is used. In the first case, when a message
containing a "Bcc:" field is prepared to be sent, the "Bcc:" line is
removed even though all of the recipients (including those specified in
the "Bcc:" field) are sent a copy of the message. In the second case,
recipients specified in the "To:" and "Cc:" lines each are sent a copy
of the message with the "Bcc:" line removed as above, but the
recipients on the "Bcc:" line get a separate copy of the message
containing a "Bcc:" line. (When there are multiple recipient addresses
in the "Bcc:" field, some implementations actually send a separate copy
of the message to each recipient with a "Bcc:" containing only the
address of that particular recipient.) Finally, since a "Bcc:" field
may contain no addresses, a "Bcc:" field can be sent without any
addresses indicating to the recipients that blind copies were sent to
someone. Which method to use with "Bcc:" fields is implementation
dependent, but refer to the "Security Considerations" section of this
document for a discussion of each.
What it does allow as a new option is the one you erroneously claimed RFC
822 asked for, that is, construct different Bcc headers for each Bcc
recipient.
MfG Kai