Gordon Messmer writes:

On 07/06/2017 03:54 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Would it work to simply use a custom header name instead of "Bcc:". Most email clients won't show it by default, but it's going to be there and can be looked at, in some way; and the email clients will also ignore it if the message is replied to.

That's the other option I'm looking at, and I'm more likely to go that route than introduce another message delivery code path in the framework. Some record is better than no record, but I feel like that path would still be very slightly inferior to the solutions that Gmail and Courier IMAP provide. Is there a logical reason why sendmail should remove the Bcc: header when headers aren't used to indicate recipients?

My recollection is hazy, but I thought that this was sendmail-sendmail's behavior, which was to simply strip off the Bcc: header from the mail.

The current version of sendmail's man page suggests – with some ambiguity – that only the -t option does that; so I don't know whether this was changed some time, or it was always like that.

I was curious as to the historical origin of this, and poking around the Intertubes all the references were to RFC 733 which only states that β€œthe contents of this field are not included in copies of the message sent to the primary and secondary recipients. Some systems may choose to include the text of the "Bcc" field only in the author(s)'s copy, while others may also include it in the text sent to all those indicated in the "Bcc" list.” without going into much detail of how the recipient list is established; but the "may" part's only logical intepretation is that the whole thing is always optional.

Still, from a certain point of view, sendmail-sendmail's behavior is quite reasonable, too. You can say that by explicitly specifying the recipient list this places the onus on the sender to identify the so-called "primary and secondary" recipients; with the presumption that the sender is responsible for formatting the message, and the sender is wholly responsible for including or omitting the contents of the Bcc. This is a reasonable position to make, so I'll change this.

Attachment: pgpU3zvzSFowB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
courier-users mailing list
Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users

Reply via email to