[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "proper" handling of BCC

2012-04-18 04:12:55

To get back to the original question:

On 2/28/12 7:17 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:

I actually started writing such a doc about a year ago, but never finished it.

Is it worth dusting off?

    Tony Hansen

which was a reply to:

On 2/28/2012 12:24 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

On 2/28/2012 9:11 AM, Paul Smith wrote:

OK, I was wrong - but I've never seen a BCC handled in that way before... I've sometimes received messages with a 'BCC' field containing addresses who were NOT me (ie I shouldn't have known they existed), and most MUAs I've seen (in fact, all those I've investigated fully) just list those recipients in the envelope for a single copy of the message. So, I've never seen a BCC field in a message
header, used 'correctly'.

We have never really standardized BCC as an end-to-end construct, at the MUA-MUA level.

and given the long thread of messages from at least ten people that followed, I certainly think it would be good if Tony wiped of the dust from his document and send a first draft to this list.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>