Mark Jared Nightingale <mark(_at_)aecinfo(_dot_)com> writes:
I found this near the bottom of the procmailrc.5 man page. It seems to
indicate that Bcc'd mail should be caught and routed properly.
----------
MISCELLANEOUS
If the regular expression contains `^TO' it will be substi-
tuted by `(^((Original-)?(Resent-)?(To|Cc|Bcc)|(X-Envelope
|Apparently(-Resent)?)-To):(.*[^a-zA-Z])?)', which should
catch all destination specifications.
----------
I'd say that it indicates that procmail will attempt to match Bcc headers,
but I'm paranoid.
However, THIS receipe:
:0
* ^TO(_dot_)*sheryl(_at_)aecinfo(_dot_)com
! aec(_at_)inforamp(_dot_)net
does NOT catch mail that is BCC'd to sheryl(_at_)aecinfo(_dot_)com(_dot_) Why?
The Bcc: header should in general not appear in an incoming message
(if procmail is used for processing outgoing mail it may occur there).
Most (?) Mail User Agents will send a bcc by just removing the header
entirely and putting the address in the envelope recipient list with
the other recipients from the To: and Cc: headers. Done this way, the
address to which the message was bcc'ed *does not occur in the headers
at all*, and you are SOL.
Tests reveal that To's and CC's get handled properly. But BCC's do not -
possibly because the BCC info is hidden in the header so it is not properly
read by procmail (??). It seems that any mail processor **must** be able to
properly handle BCC's. What am I missing?
By the time procmail is run (in the standard installation), the
envelope is lost, which is the only way you would be able to process
Bcc's with any possible regularity, and even that's suspect as if an
alias at another site that contains your address is bcc'ed, then the
envelope, by the time it reaches you site, will only contain your
(local) address.
Furthermore, the whole point of the Bcc: header is that the people who
receive the message do not know the entire list of address to which the
message was sent. If an alias is bcc'ed, it is not clear whether the
members of the alias should know that it was the alias that was bcc'ed
and not just the individual in question alone.
Philip Guenther