Re: BATV breaks rfc2821bis?

At 13:49 -0600 on 05/21/2008, Philip Guenther wrote about Re: BATV 
breaks rfc2821bis?:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
> > At 19:11 -0700 on 05/20/2008, ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote about 
> > Re: BATV breaks rfc2821bis?:
> > > FWIW, the ongoing problem we have with vacation messages is the "don't send
> > > unless the recipient's address actually appears in the header" rule.
> > What Header? A mailing list (or BCC'ed) message sent to a user as 
> > the only recipient at that domain, will usually have the user's 
> > address in a "for" clause of a Received Header even though the 
> > address does not occur in a To or Cc Header so it will still occur 
> > (and meet the rule criteria) if Received Headers count.
> Nope, the 'for' clause of Received headers is not part of the check. 
> RFC 5230, section 4.5 has the full details, starting with:
>    "Vacation" MUST NOT respond to a message unless the recipient user's
>    email address is in a "To", "Cc", "Bcc", "Resent-To", "Resent-Cc", or
>    "Resent-Bcc" line of the original message.  An email address is
>    considered to belong to the recipient if it is one of:
Thank you for your reply. I read RFC5230 after I had sent my query so 
I had seen that info. OTOH, I think the RFC in allowing bcc and/or 
resent-bcc headers to be considered is in error since these headers 
should never occur in the transmitted text of the message (the bcc is 
stripped when the message is originally injected so it is not there 
and thus I do not know if a resent-bcc can be created) unless 
something is broken (such as the Apparently-To header injection bug 
that occurred in the absence of any To/Cc addresses).