dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net (Dave Crocker) wrote on 16.08.04 in
<1155674959(_dot_)20040816142547(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>:
TH>> He's suggesting a form of To/Cc that other people cannot accidentally
TH>> reply to.
That's what I meant to describe. The headers sent by the early MH for a
bcc were:
Date: xxx
[To]: yyy
[cc]: zzz
Subject: aaa
From: bbb
So a regular reply command would not see the primary or secondary
address lists.
Ah, no. The suggestion was NOT for the Bcc: recipients to be unable to
reply, it was for the *non*-Bcc: recipients being unable to reply *to* the
Bcc: recipients (by simply not having those addresses in the headers they
see).
You could call that a one-off or snapshot copy.
I had missed that. So he wants these "tertiary" recipients to be listed
explicitly, but to get copies that cannot be automatically replied to.
No, no, no, no. See above. You still got it the wrong way around.
In other words, they are outside the fishbowl of the conversation. They
get to listen but not participate.
The whole point is they do *not* get to listen.
MfG Kai