Re: "proper" handling of BCC

ietf-smtp

2012-04-17 09:49:05


On Tue 17/Apr/2012 16:26:49 +0200 John Levine wrote:


I'd rather move toward MUAs creating correct messages, and having
submission server fixups as a backup.


+1, and if a MUA is so smart as to add such functionality, why does it have
to hijack a "Bcc" field which is already used for different purposes?

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: "proper" handling of BCC, Robert A. Rosenberg Re: "proper" handling of BCC, John C Klensin Re: "proper" handling of BCC, Steve Atkins Re: "proper" handling of BCC, John C Klensin Re: "proper" handling of BCC, Hector Santos Re: "proper" handling of BCC, John Levine Re: "proper" handling of BCC, Alessandro Vesely <= Re: "proper" handling of BCC, Dave Crocker Re: "proper" handling of BCC, John Levine Re: "proper" handling of BCC, Dave Crocker Re: "proper" handling of BCC, Hector Santos Re: "proper" handling of BCC, John C Klensin Re: "proper" handling of BCC, John C Klensin Re: "proper" handling of BCC, Hector Santos Re: "proper" handling of BCC, Hector Santos Re: "proper" handling of BCC, Rolf E. Sonneveld

Previous by Date:	Re: "proper" handling of BCC, John Levine
Next by Date:	Re: "proper" handling of BCC, Dave Crocker
Previous by Thread:	Re: "proper" handling of BCC, John Levine
Next by Thread:	Re: "proper" handling of BCC, Dave Crocker
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]