[Top] [All Lists]

Re: V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai: Inventor of e-mail honored by Smithsonian

2012-02-28 12:51:14

At 8:21 AM -0800 2/28/12, 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

Another source of potential BCC leakage are MTAs, which might record all local recipients. Most MTAs only record the recipient in a "Received:" header field if there is only one, but there have been some which record all. If the MUA generates multiple message objects and transactions, it no longer relies on the MTAs also not letting the feline escape its confinement/concealment.

 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.

Good point.

 In short, this is an implementation quality issue. The MUA I'm using to
 enter this messages handles all of this correctly.


Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Politics offers yesterday's answers to today's problems.
                                    --Marshall McLuhan