Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
At 11:37 AM 5/5/98 -0400, John Pawling wrote:
I believe that if the originator does
not want to send the message to the entire ML, then it is the originator's
responsibility to construct a separate ML including the desired recipients
or to compose a list of the individual recipients (i.e. not use an ML at
all).
John's right here. It is bad protocol practice to say to a remote processor
"here's what I want you to do" when you can cause the same actions yourself.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
Paul,
The problem is that if the list is quite large the burden placed on the user
could be too much for them to handle. Besides the originator may not know all
the recipients - they might know that it's a community of people but not all
the people in the community. With that said ...
I'm not thinking about this in terms of a "security function" because if you
don't want a recipient to get the message then some form of access control
should be employed. I'm a thinking of it in a sense of I've got to send a
message to a community of people to arrange Sara's birthday party, but since
it's Sara's birthday party I don't want Sara to know about it so I exempt her
address. Since it's not a security feature, in my mind, then I agree with John
P's that it should not be added in ESS or CMS. I think the idea is more
applicable as a general heading field.
I'm not sure Capt Y. Theriault and I were thinking of using it in the same way
so if we're not on the same wavelength let me know (I don't want to
misrepresent the Captain's motivations for exempted addresses).
Cheers
--
Sean Turner - IECA, Inc.