There will be some privacy concerns with changing this. People have an
expectation that a BCC is anonymous. If you try to change that you
could have some very unhappy people looking for you.
IIRC, the BCC line is deleted by the outgoing MTA and that information
is put in the envelope information. On your own there won't be a BCC
line for you to find, discover, match, etc.
What you can do within your own MTA is figure out how to capture all the
envelope addresses and put them in some kind of custom header line as
each mail item is received. Mixed in those headers would be all the BCC
information. This would allow you to match on them but not as BCC.
You'd have to have some other criteria. An interesting one would be to
match addresses that show in the envelope but not in the To: or CC:
header lines. Doing this destroys the B part of BCC...
I think the best way to go would be for sendmail to log all envelope
addresses (and in 8.12 if you log high enough, it might be in there - I
haven't looked). A separate log file for envelope addresses would be a
nice touch. The advantage here is that you could track mail delivery
behind the scenes but each mail item could be as anonymous as it is now.
I don't think you can do this within the sendmail.cf file. Maybe with a
milter.
Dana Bourgeois
-----Original Message-----
From: procmail-bounces(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
[mailto:procmail-bounces(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE] On Behalf Of
Shashank V.
Kolhatkar
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:28 AM
To: procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
Subject: Bcc and it's pit falls
Hi All
How many of you would like to agree with me that 'BCC' getting deleted
from "sendmail", an MTA, is a real head-ache for Email Administrators as
they have to keep watch on Enterprise-data and its forwarding to others
for "consideration"?
Don't you think we all should request the "great people" who maintain
sendmail/procmailrc to disable this feature looking into recent times?.
So much of information flows out of an organizations and as there are no
to-headers where the information has gone, we feel helpless and buy the
clues of the sender that "it went for safe reason".
Incase any one of you have overcome this problem, I shall be grateful to
you if you passon the methods to control thru 'bcc', what we call in
today's world, "Industrial Espionage".
best regards to all.
ShashankK
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan <mailto:jidanni(_at_)jidanni(_dot_)org> Jacobson
To: procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:23 AM
Subject: Re: Bounce message for filtered mail via procmail?
"P" == Professional Software Engineering
<PSE-L(_at_)mail(_dot_)professional(_dot_)org> writes:
P> Kinda, 'cept your not forwarding the stripped message to the
P> orignal recipient, but firing it off back at the person you BELIEVE
P> sent the message, which 9 out of 10 times isn't the infected user
P> that sent the message.
Are there any clues for a non-root user examining headers with
procmail or spamassassin that a suspected spam is safe to bounce too,
and not an innocent 3rd party?
I suppose if we were sure about that then should also know if it is
spam or not in the first place.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail