ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
> ... but as it happens there is a pretty clear and simple model for
> the semantics that attach to bcc.
X.400 documented this pretty clearly. If we're going to discuss a model
for Internet Mail, it'd be worth at least using that as a starting
point.
Gonna have to disagree with you there... yes, the documents expand a
large number of
words documenting something they called a model, but the term "clear"
definitely did not apply. If it had then none of the various operational
profiles of X.400 like GOSIP (which added another three inch of paper
to the
pile) would have been wanted or needed.
I was only referring to BCC, which (in the dusty corners of my memory) I
recall being one of the very few features of X.400 that I liked better
than what we were doing on Internet Mail, if only because it actually
defined it.
<csg>