there's an RFC covering smarthosts now, 2476. It hasn't been very widely
deployed, but IMO no good MUA can be blatantly incompatible with it.
RFC 2476 doesn't suggest that the message submission servers hould remove bcc.
For this reason, I think that a MUA which wants bcc removed cannot trust
the smarthost to do so. It must do the job itself.
I agree with this assessment. An MUA that cares about bcc handling has no
choice but to do it itself, if for no other reason than it cannot count on it
being done elsewhere. I happen to think the transport infrastructure shouldn't
muck with bcc, but whether it is correct or not really doesn't change the
reality for an MUA.
Philip Hazel writes:
> 4. Among the MUAs, I think that Pine never sends Bcc: lines, but Mutt by
> default does, assuming that the MTA will deal with them (Mutt does
> not use the -t option).
IMNSHO, mutt is in the wrong.
I agree.
Although I recognize that customers can and will demand that MSAs/MTAs/MTAs
be able to remove bcc and have provided the means to do it in my own
code, I regard it as a misconfiguration to actually set things up this way.
Ned