Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
I stand corrected: Three different functions. The line
BCC: nsb(_at_)guppylake(_dot_)com
might better be represented as
I-Sent-a-BCC-To: nsb(_at_)guppylake(_dot_)com (for my files)
BCC-Should-Be-Sent-To: nsb(_at_)guppylake(_dot_)com
(written by a UA as a request to an MTA)
Why-You-Got-This: You were BCC'ed as nsb(_at_)guppylake(_dot_)com (for
viewing by the bcc recipient)
Nit here on your second item: An MTA never looks at the header of a
message! The MTA is expected to look at an envelope, not the header. If
you're passing a message to something that IS expected to look at the
To/Cc/Bcc headers and act on them, that thing is NOT an MTA.
Even MSA's are not expected to look at the To/Cc/Bcc headers.
Now, if you want to argue that some software DOES look at those headers
to determine the addresses to send a message to, that's fine. Those
software packages are working as part of the MUA system, and it's a
private contract between those software packages to do so.
But an MTA should NOT be looking at the To/Cc/Bcc headers.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com