At 16.32 +0100 04-08-18, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
The summary just posted explained that MTA has no bussiness
removing Bcc headers. It is a MUA function that happens, on
Unix, to be implemented by another instance of sendmail
binary invoked a particular way.
This is obviously the consensus of the discussion.
But it is not unreasonable that a consenting MUA and MTA
may agree to move part of the burden of the MUA to the MTA,
like for examples is already accepted that the initital MTA
may add a "Date" header for a message lacking such a
header. Since MTA meddling with Bcc is highly
controversial, this should of course never be done unless
there is explicit agreement between MUA and MTA to do it
this way. "-t" might be a way of indicating such an
agreement, but only works when submission is done by
execution, which is probably not the most common method of
MUA-MTA communication.
If there is to be a method for an MUA to ask an MTA to
meddle with Bcc, then it is important for this
communication between MUA and MTA is standardized, so that
misunderstandings will not occur, since misunderstandings
can result in embarassing situations.
Do not interpret the above to mean that I feel such a
standard to be very urgent or important, nor that I am
willing to be editor of it.
I have not been very active in standards work recent
years, but I remember there has been discussion of
writing a special standard on what the first receiving
MTA, when getting a message from an MUA, is allowed
to do with the message, such as adding "Date" and
"Message-ID". Was such a standard ever developed?
it should be the place for a discussion of a possible
"Bcc"-meddling ESMTP extension.
--
Jacob Palme <jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/