On 8 Sep 2016, at 1:04, Richard Rettke wrote: > On 7 Sep 2016, at 2:54, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote: > >> "IMPORTANT! This message has been blind-carbon-copied to you. Do not >> reply-to-all or forward it without the author's permission." >> >> This text was added to the email body for all bcc recipients. > > In some respects it's rather surprising that email clients and web based > email, even allow a Reply All to a BCC list. You have no idea who you're > replying too.
Well, the receiver do not know he was bcc:ed. There was an envelope To address
with his email address.
What I think you say is that "it is surprising that an email client is allowing
(not warning) if one do reply-all if none of the email addresses in To: or Cc:
headers are known"?
This email for example, that I am doing reply-all on have
mailmate@lists.freron.com on it. My email client could know I am on that list
(valid To/Cc) but I could have been bcc:ed. How can it know?
> Just to be flexible I would think a preference option that simply disables
> the ability to do a reply all to a BCC list would be in order. Certainly
> would not solve the problem for all the other clients but perhaps a step in
> the right direction.
That would help _me_, but not the ones I send bcc to (i.e. receiver of my email
messages).
I see these as two different problems.
To warn me as a sender that I am using bcc ("Do you really want to bcc people
and not Cc?") might also be ok. But I think the bcc header is already today in
MailMate "hidden" enough so that the risk for the MM user doing the wrong thing
(Bcc instead of Cc) is extremely small.
paf
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com https://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
