Hello, the Bat! list recipients,
Monday, December 25, 2000, Thomas Fernandez wrote to OK3 on TBUDL about
Opinion: "Blind Copy" emails should warn / not allow reply to original recipient:
O>> Not really. RFC states that both CC and BCC recipients might be listed
O>> or not. That only depends on server administration preference wich are
O>> in turn based on tradition and common sence. But that doesn't mean
O>> that server which leaves BCC addresses in headers are breaking RFC.
TF> It wouldn't make sense to me to treat BCC address like CC addresses.
TF> anyway, which RFC are you and syafril referring to? Let's look it up.
TF> ;-)
It was a long time since I read it, so I had a mess in my head.
RFC-822 only states that BCC addresses may be shown to another BCC
addressees. I don't remember where did I read about that CC field is
not required to be included.
---8<-----------------------------------------------------------------
4.5.3. BCC / RESENT-BCC
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 reci-
pients. 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.
---8<-----------------------------------------------------------------
--
Best regards,
Oleg Zalyalov. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using The Bat! version 1.48f
under Windows NT 4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 6
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
