[sylpheed:30210] Re: Bcc: missing for sender & receiver

[Gene Goldenfeld]

bojster <sylpheed at bojster.net> wrote:

>Gene Goldenfeld wrote:
>
>> I didn't suggest that the Bcc should show up in the header of the
>> recipient. Many, if not most programs - and I vaguely recalled in
>> Sylpheed 2.2.9 and earlier -- let the receiver know it's a Bcc with text
>> in brackets or parentheses within the message itself.  Run a test in
>> 2.2.9 and check.  That's an extremely vital piece of information to
>> convey to the receiver, and can't be left to the hope that they will
>> study the header and deduce they got a Bcc. I discovered the missing
>> Bcc sending test messages to myself today, after noticing it wasn't in
>> the my copy's header.  I'm using 2.3.0b3 and wanted to alert Hiro to
>> the matter.  
>
>OK, then I guess I misunderstood you. I did run a test (and I have
>already told you some of its results - that BCC is in the header of the
>message saved in 'sent'). In 2.2.9 there is absolutely no indication
>that a BCC is a BCC (though it's easy to tell by the fact that the
>recipient is neither the addressee nor the copy-receiver) and to be
>honest I have never seen anything like that (unless you mean, for
>example, mailing list's code in square brackets prefixed to the
>subject). Why is it important to tell the receiver they got a BCC anyway
>(I'm asking out of the curiosity)? Or why is it important to
>distinguish CC from BCC in such cases (as it's obvious that when the
>receiver doesn't see their address in 'To:', then it's either CC or
>BCC)?
>

So the Bcc recipient knows quickly that's what their role in the
communication is, and also doesn't turn around and mistakenly do a Reply
All.  

Gene