On 28/02/2012 16:21, Ned Freed wrote:
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'.
(Not to mention that bcc "fields" should not exist anyway - that's the
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
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.