ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

BCC (was: Re: V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai: Inventor of e-mail honored by Smithsonian)

2012-02-28 10:48:14



On 2/28/2012 1:02 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
So, apparently he should be remembered for writing something like:

send("From: ");
send (sendersAddress);
send(CRLF);

(Not to mention that bcc "fields" should not exist anyway - that's the whole 
point)


BCC is more interesting than usually appreciated, IMO.

At the architectural level is the distinction between a construct limited to the author's MUA, versus something with end-to-end properties.

As an MUA construct it lets an author note recipients that won't be indicated to other recipients. Constrained to a UI mechanism, it's not really part of Internet Mail architecturally. Its contents get added to the transport protocol list (RFC5321.rcptto). The result looks rather like what a mailing list posts.

The tendency for MUAs has been to do only the above and thereby create only a single submission posting. To do more requires at least one additional posting.

With separate postings, the MUA can submit variants of the email object.

What some MUAs do is a single additional posting, where the email object contains an empty rfc5322.bcc header field. This can serve to alert the bcc recipient that they are, in fact, a bcc recipient. One could have a receiving MUA handle such a message differentially, though I believe none do.

I've also seen an added posting per bcc recipient, where the individual bcc recipient's address is in their copy of the message.

There's a variant I did, but can't remember whether I got it done to the original MH (by Bruce Borden and later taken over by Marshall Rose at UC Irvine) or to MMDF while I was at UDel.

Anyhow, the enhancement was to prevent a Bcc recipient from unintentionally sending a reply that copied the primary recipients. (This happens when a bcc recipient does a Reply All.)

As I recall, for the bcc posting, I modified the rfc5322.to and rfc5322.cc header field names to be: [To]: and [cc]:

Visually, this could look quite natural to the recipient, but of course the Reply command wouldn't see them.

(the next person responsible for that code removed the feature.)


d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net