[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "proper" handling of BCC

2012-02-29 18:07:28

At 1:44 AM -0500 2/29/12, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:

At 15:11 -0800 on 02/28/2012, Ned Freed wrote about Re: "proper" handling of BCC:

  > Ways it can be handled is for the MUA to submit the BCC header to the
  MSA and have it remove the header while cloning the message to create
  one master and one copy for each BCC listing only the Address, have
  the MSA scan the To and CC assuming that any RCPT-TOs not there are
  BCCs and do the cloning, OR add a BCC indicator to the RCPT-TO and do
  the cloning. Not that the first 2 alter the MSA while the last alters
  both the MSA and MUA.

 It's certainly possible to have the MSA make the message copy, but we'd
 need to define an extension for that. No such extension exists AFAIK.

 No extension needed.

An extension would be useful but is not needed. It would be useful in the same way that the future-delivery extension is useful: it offloads work to the MSA. The extension isn't needed because the MUA can implement best practice on its own (by sending n+1 copies).

So long as the MSA has the code to clone (and inject the BCC into) a submitted message that has more RECPT-TOs than the sum of the addresses in TO and CC (ie: So long as it is not being submitted by a Mailing List and thus had one or more BCC'ed addresses that only the MUA knew of) you just need to make this the default via a parm setting (This functioning is method 2 of 3 above). This is similar to having a MSA or MTA clone multi-addressed messages that would normally be sent a one message with multiple RECPT-TOs going to the same MTA by having a "DO NOT BATCH" parm. Since this is a setting in the MSA/MTA code it just defines a default action not one that only occurs when requested by the submitter.

Its ugly to tie default MSA action to the To/Cc headers. At a minimum, the MSA needs to match the To/Cc addresses to the envelope addresses, not the count of how many addresses are in each. Still, the MSA shouldn't do things differently by default -- the MUA may be sending multiple copies. Any change in MSA behavior needs to be tied to an extension.

I acknowledge that an extension would be better so it only occurs when the users asks. OTOH: One way to handle this is to define two MSA addresses - One that works as now and one with this default action code. If you want this to occur then just use a sending persona that points at the 2nd MSA address.

Ooh, no, please. One address per combination of behavioral differences? Yikes!

Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Teacher Strikes Idle Kids
--Newspaper headline