Gary R. Schmidt to Grant Taylor:
As such, BCC recipients would also not see themselves or
other BCC recipients.
When I was taught to type "Blind Carbon Copies" on manual
typewriters, with real carbon paper, envelopes 9and
stamps) that had to be moistened, the idea was that named
recipients of such documents would not know who else might
receive a copy.
But that's a) Common Sense, and b) Basic English.
Concealing blind (Bcc:) recipients from other (To:, Cc:),
non-blind, recipients as a group makes sense as well, and is
explicitely allowed in RFC 822, section 4.5.3:
This field contains the identity of additional recipients
of the message. The 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.
And I am sure that RFCs 2822 and 5322 both only extend those
requirements by adding more options for the handling of
Bcc:, while remaining backwards compatible with 822. In the
latter two RFCs, a Bcc: line listing all of the blind
recipients is not forbidden in 3.6.3, and is also mentioned
as a possible choice in section 5:
If the "Bcc:" field sent contains all of the blind
addressees, all of the "Bcc:" recipients will be seen by
each "Bcc:" recipient.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)