On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2017-02-07 18:33, Ruga wrote:
I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions. The To
From and Cc fields are defined by a grammar AND a natural language
description. Such fields MUST hold addresses, were an address is a
username the "@" symbol and a domain name. The string "undisclosed
recipients: ;" does not parse the grammar, and it does not pass the
natural language requirement for an address. If the sender hides the
recipients, why should I care delivering its junk to my valued
accounts?
FWIW, I regularly get completely legitimate non-commercial messages with
headers of this form. People use it to conceal from each recipient the
addresses of other recipients - just like a list or an alias, but (I'm
guessing) done entirely in the senders MUA.
Right.
So, Ruga, if you just want to BCC a bunch of people, what do you propose
should be put into the To: header?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When designing software, any time you think to yourself "a user
would never be stupid enough to do *that*", you're wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 days until Abraham Lincoln's and Charles Darwin's 208th Birthdays
