Everyone seems to have simple rules, and yet I will freely confess that
I do not have any coherent model at this point for how bcc is supposed
to work. The more I hear the more confused I get.
I think that someone who thinks they have a coherent mental model for
all of this should try to write it down. -- Nathaniel
On Aug 16, 2004, at 10:15 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> writes:
In fact it is not unreasonable to have each bcc recipient get a copy
of
the message with a bcc header that contains (only) their name in it.
In that case, it would be reasonable for an MTA to remove a Bcc header
that did not agree with the envelope address. Whether that would be
expressed as a MAY, SHOULD or MUST is another matter of course :-( .
No, this is not reasonable at all. Consider the case of a bcc
recipient whose email is forwarded. The envelope address won't agree
with the bcc header, but you still don't want the bcc header touched.
It's a simple rule: the MTA and MSA should only touch the headers
their respective protocols say they should be adding or touching. And
that list is very small.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com