[sylpheed:37309] Re: Email standard for BCC behaviour

[Jeremy Cook]

On Thu Jul 25 2024 5:10 AM, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:

>> As written, this is ambiguous, and seems to suggest that "other
>> implementations" might actually keep the entire BCC line with all listed
>> addresses. Which violates the principle that BCC addresses "are not to be
>> revealed to other recipients of the message."
> 
> 	When taken in context with the definition of BCC in RFC-2822 I
> think it implies that the alternative is to completely suppress the BCC
> header rather than generating separate messages.

Yeah, that would make more sense and be compliant with the RFC, thank you!

But I have in fact seen some programs (not Sylpheed) that disclose BCC addresses 
to other BCC recipients, which is a clear violation of the RFC.

There's also this odd passage:

"When a message is a reply to another message... If a "Bcc:" field is present in 
the original message, addresses in that field MAY appear in the "Bcc:" field of 
the reply, but they SHOULD NOT appear in the "To:" or "Cc:" fields."

I don't know what to make of this.

The original message should never contain any addresses in the Bcc field other 
than yours, if you were a Bcc recipient.

Jeremy