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.
The problem is the pure definition is so short it isn't worth bothering with,
and the larger scope of how it was implementing isn't really compatible with
Internet mail, even if you consider it to be a good idea, which it wasn't.
Ned