On 28/02/2012 16:21, Ned Freed wrote:
(Not to mention that bcc "fields" should not exist anyway - that's the
whole point)
Strongy disagree. The problem with implementations that cheat and implement
Bcc: by generating a single message copy with the Bcc: addresses only
appearing in the envelope is that those recipients do not get any sort
of indication that that were Bcc:'ed. If they don't realize that and
do a reply-all, the cat's out of the bad and the sender may be in big
trouble.
And since users are careless, it really makes a lot of sense for MUAs
to check and see if they are doing a reply-all to a message that was Bcc:'ed
to them. That's only possible if a Bcc: field is present in their copy
of the message.
In short, this is an implementation quality issue. The MUA I'm using to
enter this messages handles all of this correctly.
OK, I was wrong - but I've never seen a BCC handled in that way
before... I've sometimes received messages with a 'BCC' field containing
addresses who were NOT me (ie I shouldn't have known they existed), and
most MUAs I've seen (in fact, all those I've investigated fully) just
list those recipients in the envelope for a single copy of the message.
So, I've never seen a BCC field in a message header, used 'correctly'.