On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 08:10:29AM -0400, Scott Sharkey wrote:
> I asked a few weeks ago about known issues with qmail not delivering
> BCC messages.
I don't think that there is such a problem *in general*.
Unfortunately, I don't have your previous message handy.
> After investigating further, the client is claiming
> that the messages that are not delivered have ONLY a BCC (no to, no
> cc). In a quick reading of RFC822, it appears that there is some
> ambiguity to the spec (surprise!)... a "destination" is required,
> where destination is defined as a To:, CC: or Bcc:. But, it also
> says that the Bcc: can be put only on the author's copy, or on
> all Bcc recipients copies, but NOT on To: or CC: recipient copies
> of the message. It's optional in the first two cases.
Your analysis is correct. The only part of qmail that handles this
is qmail-inject, and it handles this case correctly by always removing
the Bcc: header and inserting a dummy, but valid Cc: header if no
Addresses are left:
if (!htypeseen[H_TO] && !htypeseen[H_CC])
puts("Cc: recipient list not shown: ;\n");
The rest of qmail couldn't care less about the contents of
previous headers. qmail will happily deliver an incoming mail with no
headers at all. It will insert its own Received: headers, of course.
The only way I can think of that qmail may drop a Bcc: mail is the
following:
An external Bcc mail comes in without any destination headers and
is fed to some script that tries to reinsert the mail without giving
new destination addresses, but that would be nonsensical, I think.
> So, in theory, a message with a BCC only would have no To:, CC:,
> or Bcc: headers, at least in some cases. Question is, is the
> message then a "legal" message, or would qmail just drop it since
> there is no "destination"? I know Dan is a stickler for observing
> correct protocol (I agree with him), but I'm not sure if this is
> a bug or "expected behavior".
There's also the important point of "being liberal in what you accept".
Could you please (re-)provide some more details, maybe it is a MUA problem.
Jost
--
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please help stamp out spam! |
| Postmaster, JAPH, resident answer machine am RZ der RUB |
| Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate |
| William of Ockham (1285-1347/49) |
