Robert writes: > At least one recipient field used to be required, when Bcc is the only one, > it had to be be retained (it didn't need to, and shouldn't, contain any > addresses, but the field had to remain). This requirement seems to have > been deleted, and now a message with no recipient fields is OK, but for > compat with older MUAs (potentially even MTAs) it is still a good idea to > include an empty Bcc: field when there are no To or Cc fields.
Thanks for that explanation. nmh does retain the (always blank) BCC: in the blind copies. Valdis, the non-blind message does not retain any Bcc fields, so no leak there. I included the following in this message draft: Bcc: [email protected], Robert Elz <[email protected]>, "Valdis Kl=?utf-8?Q?ē?=tnieks" <[email protected]> I'd be interested to see how much of that makes it through to each of you. David
