Hello? (was Re: Adding Envelope Headers?)

[Julian Field]

If you send a message to someone on the same mail server as you, and you
Bcc another person on the same mail server, then both recipients would
appear in the "Envelope-To" header, revealing to the first person that the
message was also sent to the second person. Which rather ruins the point of
being able to Bcc in the first place.

At 23:12 19/02/2004, you wrote:
>Julian,
>
>The message isn't answerable by anyone but you -- it's a reply to your
>message about how putting "Envelope-To" headers into a message would be
>a bad idea (my response says that it's bad in the general cause, but not
>in some specific cases, which would be based upon the MTA, and should
>therefore be selectable by the sysadmin running mailscanner).
>
>a) doesn't apply because I'm not reporting a problem, I'm refuting an
>assertion of yours,
>
>and
>
>b) doesn't apply because you're the only one being addressed, really.
>That "other's can't answer because they don't know" isn't relevant.
>
>
>John
>
>
>Julian Field wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, haven't got time to respond to everyone. I suggest the silence means
> > no-one else either
> > a) has enough info from you to work out what the problem is,
> > or
> > b) doesn't know.
> >
> > At 21:41 18/02/2004, you wrote:
> > >John Rudd wrote:
> > > >
> > > > John Rudd wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Julian Field wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At 14:00 13/02/2004, you wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > >X-Envelope-To:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am of the opinion that ...
> > > > > > putting in the envelope recipient is a bad idea.
> > > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > When you know that the MTA will do the right thing, it's not "a bad
> > > > > idea".  And for some MTA's, it's definitely "the right idea".
> > > >
> > > > So, does the lack of response to my two messages indicate they fell on
> > > > deaf ears?  Are my arguments unconvincing?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >*tap*tap*tap* Is this thing on?
> > >
> > >Beuller?  Beuller?

--
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support

PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654