Dumb generic question about reply messages... - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Dumb generic question about reply messages... - Mozilla ; On 05/06/08 13:01, Jay Garcia wrote: > On 06.05.2008 13:44, Mark Hansen wrote: > > --- Original Message --- > >> On 05/06/08 11:22, Jay Garcia wrote: >>> On 06.05.2008 09:52, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote: >>> >>> --- ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: Dumb generic question about reply messages...

  1. Re: Dumb generic question about reply messages...

    On 05/06/08 13:01, Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 06.05.2008 13:44, Mark Hansen wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    >> On 05/06/08 11:22, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>> On 06.05.2008 09:52, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>
    >>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>
    >>>> chicagofan wrote:
    >>>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>>>> On 05.05.2008 23:37, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> chicagofan wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Someone has asked a group of people on a mail list to check *our
    >>>>>>>> replies*... to HER messages... to be sure we are not sending mail to
    >>>>>>>> someone she has bcc'd on her original message... who doesn't want our
    >>>>>>>> mail.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Aside from the *easy* solution, which I am going to suggest to her, I
    >>>>>>>> don't think I've ever seen an address added to my reply addresses, from
    >>>>>>>> someone else's blind copy original. Does that happen with SM, or any
    >>>>>>>> mail reader? bj
    >>>>>>> no. If its bcc, then you don't know who the blind versions went to.
    >>>>>>> Therefore, there'd be no addresses to add.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> If you suspect a Bcc list then in the rec'd message click on "Reply to All"
    >>>>>> and the bcc's will show up as cc's. :-)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So, if I reply to that message "Reply All" as you would on a list [without
    >>>>> looking at the original's address list]... I *will* be replying... to any and
    >>>>> everyone she bcc's? I didn't think that would happen.
    >>>>> bj
    >>>>
    >>>> no it wouldn't.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> It does in TB 2.0.0.14 here as tested and confirmed.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Are you saying that when you receive a message in TB which was sent including
    >> blind carbon copy recipients, that you (one of the recipient of the message)
    >> can see those BCC addresses?!?
    >>
    >> If so, something is seriously broken somewhere...
    >>
    >> Those are supposed to be stripped by the mail delivery agent when delivering
    >> the e-mail to the recipient.

    >
    > If I do "Reply ALL" they appear as CC's.
    >


    Wow. I don't have the RFC reference handy, but I recall reading that the mail
    delivery agent is supposed to strip those out. If the e-mail recipient can
    see the BCC list, the MDA is broken.

    Consider this: What is the point of the BCC list if the recipient can see
    the list just as well as the CC list?

  2. Re: Dumb generic question about reply messages...

    On 06.05.2008 15:41, Q wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Sorry about my other reply, sent just before I got this. You can just
    > discard the test mail I sent you.


    Was discarded automagically by Spamassassin .. :-)

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  3. Re: Dumb generic question about reply messages...

    On 06.05.2008 15:49, Mark Hansen wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > On 05/06/08 13:01, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> On 06.05.2008 13:44, Mark Hansen wrote:
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>
    >>> On 05/06/08 11:22, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>> On 06.05.2008 09:52, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>>
    >>>>> chicagofan wrote:
    >>>>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>>>>> On 05.05.2008 23:37, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> chicagofan wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Someone has asked a group of people on a mail list to check *our
    >>>>>>>>> replies*... to HER messages... to be sure we are not sending mail to
    >>>>>>>>> someone she has bcc'd on her original message... who doesn't want our
    >>>>>>>>> mail.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Aside from the *easy* solution, which I am going to suggest to her, I
    >>>>>>>>> don't think I've ever seen an address added to my reply addresses, from
    >>>>>>>>> someone else's blind copy original. Does that happen with SM, or any
    >>>>>>>>> mail reader? bj
    >>>>>>>> no. If its bcc, then you don't know who the blind versions went to.
    >>>>>>>> Therefore, there'd be no addresses to add.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> If you suspect a Bcc list then in the rec'd message click on "Reply to All"
    >>>>>>> and the bcc's will show up as cc's. :-)
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> So, if I reply to that message "Reply All" as you would on a list [without
    >>>>>> looking at the original's address list]... I *will* be replying... to any and
    >>>>>> everyone she bcc's? I didn't think that would happen.
    >>>>>> bj
    >>>>>
    >>>>> no it wouldn't.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> It does in TB 2.0.0.14 here as tested and confirmed.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Are you saying that when you receive a message in TB which was sent including
    >>> blind carbon copy recipients, that you (one of the recipient of the message)
    >>> can see those BCC addresses?!?
    >>>
    >>> If so, something is seriously broken somewhere...
    >>>
    >>> Those are supposed to be stripped by the mail delivery agent when delivering
    >>> the e-mail to the recipient.

    >>
    >> If I do "Reply ALL" they appear as CC's.
    >>

    >
    > Wow. I don't have the RFC reference handy, but I recall reading that the mail
    > delivery agent is supposed to strip those out. If the e-mail recipient can
    > see the BCC list, the MDA is broken.
    >
    > Consider this: What is the point of the BCC list if the recipient can see
    > the list just as well as the CC list?


    Based on "local" only testing I'd say that there is something amiss with
    the MTA on my server .. well, not "mine" but that of my host provider
    Verio. I'll have to pursue this with their support.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  4. Re: Dumb generic question about reply messages...

    chicagofan wrote:
    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> On 05.05.2008 23:37, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>
    >>> chicagofan wrote:
    >>>> Someone has asked a group of people on a mail list to check *our
    >>>> replies*... to HER messages... to be sure we are not sending mail to
    >>>> someone she has bcc'd on her original message... who doesn't want our
    >>>> mail.
    >>>>
    >>>> Aside from the *easy* solution, which I am going to suggest to her, I
    >>>> don't think I've ever seen an address added to my reply addresses, from
    >>>> someone else's blind copy original. Does that happen with SM, or any
    >>>> mail reader? bj
    >>> no. If its bcc, then you don't know who the blind versions went to.
    >>> Therefore, there'd be no addresses to add.
    >>>

    >>
    >> If you suspect a Bcc list then in the rec'd message click on "Reply to
    >> All"
    >> and the bcc's will show up as cc's. :-)
    >>

    >
    > So, if I reply to that message "Reply All" as you would on a list [without
    > looking at the original's address list]... I *will* be replying... to
    > any and
    > everyone she bcc's? I didn't think that would happen.
    >

    It does not happen unless the sender's mail client AND mailer are
    defective. The Bcc addresses are not supposed to leave any information
    in the headers, and should a Bcc header appear some mailers will remove it.

    Seamonkey seems correct, there ARE no headers to use, the addresses are
    simply on the addresses passed to the mailer via SMTP (on Linux). I
    assume from looking at some messages on which I was Bcc'd, that the
    Windoze version also behaves correctly.


    --
    Bill Davidsen
    "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
    the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot

  5. Re: Dumb generic question about reply messages...

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Daniel wrote:
    >> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>> chicagofan wrote:
    >>>> Someone has asked a group of people on a mail list to check *our
    >>>> replies*...
    >>>> to HER messages... to be sure we are not sending mail to someone she
    >>>> has bcc'd
    >>>> on her original message... who doesn't want our mail.
    >>>>
    >>>> Aside from the *easy* solution, which I am going to suggest to her,
    >>>> I don't
    >>>> think I've ever seen an address added to my reply addresses, from
    >>>> someone
    >>>> else's blind copy original. Does that happen with SM, or any mail
    >>>> reader?
    >>>> bj
    >>> no. If its bcc, then you don't know who the blind versions went to.
    >>> Therefore, there'd be no addresses to add.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Peter, if I have a message with a dozen To: addressees and you as a
    >> BCC:, does the package that the other recipients receive have any
    >> indication that there was originally a BCC: attached to the package as
    >> well??
    >>
    >> Does that make sense??
    >>
    >> Daniel

    >
    > No, and yes it does make sense.
    >


    O.K., so, effectively, my ISP's server sends the e-mails on their
    various ways.

    Thanks.

    Daniel

  6. Re: Dumb generic question about reply messages...

    On approximately 5/6/2008 12:35 PM, came the following characters from
    the keyboard of chicagofan:
    > Glenn wrote:
    >> On approximately 5/5/2008 9:17 PM, came the following characters from
    >> the keyboard of chicagofan:
    >>> Someone has asked a group of people on a mail list to check *our
    >>> replies*... to HER messages... to be sure we are not sending mail to
    >>> someone she has bcc'd on her original message... who doesn't want our
    >>> mail.
    >>>
    >>> Aside from the *easy* solution, which I am going to suggest to her, I
    >>> don't think I've ever seen an address added to my reply addresses,
    >>> from someone else's blind copy original. Does that happen with SM,
    >>> or any mail reader? bj

    >>
    >>
    >> There are a few mail systems that do (stupidly) preserve Bcc: headers
    >> in emails; usually only to people that are subscribers to the same
    >> system.
    >>
    >> Further, if you look in your own Sent box, you will see Bcc: for your
    >> own outgoing messages.
    >>
    >> Either of these could cause confusion for the original sender... but
    >> if she
    >> is that confused, maybe she doesn't know the difference between Cc:
    >> and Bcc:, either.

    >
    >
    > She says the friend [which she bcc'd] is complaining about receiving the
    > mail
    > list replies... from people who were *copied* on the original message. The
    > initiator is using Apple mail, I don't know about the complainant, and only
    > one other person on the *copied* list, is also using Apple mail.
    >
    > I'm using SM and the other person is using AOL mail. Before I tell her the
    > simple thing to do is to stop Bcc'ing this person... on mail to others she
    > doesn't want to correspond with, and make her mad, I'd like to know, I'm
    > safe
    > telling her I am not sending her friend any mail.
    > bj


    So it sounds like Jay has a system like I referred to in my first paragraph!

    Regarding your situation, I'm not so sure what Apple Mail does or
    expects... but I do know that it incorrectly creates MIME attachments in
    a number of different ways, as well as stretching the expectations of
    what the destination system might display. So I wouldn't be terribly
    surprised to learn that Apple Mail might also leave in the Bcc: line...
    especially now that it is Unix based...

    So most Windows email clients are SMTP based... while they may (and
    Thunderbird and SeaMonkey do) compose messages containing Bcc: headers,
    and preserve those in the Sent box, the process of sending strips those
    headers (i.e. they are not sent). Instead, the complete collection of
    To: Cc: and Bcc: recipients are sent via the SMTP RCPT (Recipient)
    command to the SMTP server, and then the message is sent (sans Bcc:
    header). The SMTP server may add headers, may check for and delete Bcc:
    (but won't find one from Mozilla clients), may check for and add a Date:
    header if missing (but will be there from Mozilla clients), may add
    Received: header, and may add other headers. It won't read or interpret
    the To: and Cc: lines to attempt to find recipients... it expects the
    mail client provided those via RCPT commands.

    I actually don't know what Mozilla clients do with incoming Bcc:
    headers, but from Jay's reports, it sounds like it includes them all
    when doing Reply All. Which is not unreasonable, given that the Bcc:
    header shouldn't be there in the first place; but if you have a sent
    message with a Bcc:, and you say Reply All, it could be that you are
    ready to "go public" with the list... if not, you can use "Edit Message
    as New", to obtain the same list, including the same Bcc: list.

    So Unix predates SMTP, and in particular sendmail has two modes of
    operation... one is SMTP-like, where the recipients are specified on the
    command line, and the body is passed, but a "more convenient" scheme is
    often used... sendmail is told to find the To: Cc: and Bcc: headers and
    send the email to them. Now it is possible to configure sendmail to
    strip the Bcc: headers before actually sending, and it is also possible
    to configure sendmail to not stript the Bcc: headers before sending,
    IIRC. Unix has many fine SMTP servers also, but many Unix systems are
    configured to use "Unix mail" protocols both for sending and receiving
    (yep, they predate POP too).

    I don't know what mail server AOL uses internally, whether homebrew, or
    sendmail, but they have also been known to leave Bcc: headers intact, at
    least when delivering to other AOL users... of course the standard AOL
    client doesn't (usually) show the Bcc: header, but alternative clients
    can...

    So your situation sounds plausible. If your friend would like to send
    an email to test@nevcal.com, and Bcc: you, I could verify the existence
    of the Bcc: header or not.


    --
    Glenn -- http://nevcal.com/
    ===========================
    A protocol is complete when there is nothing left to remove.
    -- Stuart Cheshire, Apple Computer, regarding Zero Configuration Networking

  7. Re: Dumb generic question about reply messages...

    Jay Garcia wrote:

    > On 06.05.2008 15:41, Q wrote:
    >
    > > Sorry about my other reply, sent just before I got this. You can
    > > just discard the test mail I sent you.

    >
    > Was discarded automagically by Spamassassin .. :-)


    Heh, yeah, I got the bounce message. One of the downsides to sending
    from coffee shops is that their networks are abused often enough to get
    them on blacklists, which is I guess what happened here. (Can't tell,
    since your bounce message lies, saying jay at your domain is a no-good
    recipient.)

    [followup set to mozilla.general]


  8. Re: Dumb generic question about reply messages...

    Jay Garcia wrote:

    > On 06.05.2008 15:41, Q wrote:
    >
    > > Sorry about my other reply, sent just before I got this. You can
    > > just discard the test mail I sent you.

    >
    > Was discarded automagically by Spamassassin .. :-)


    Heh, yeah, I got the bounce message. One of the downsides to sending
    from coffee shops is that their networks are abused often enough to get
    them on blacklists, which is I guess what happened here. (Can't tell,
    since your bounce message lies, saying jay at your domain is a no-good
    recipient.)

    [followup set to mozilla.general]


  9. Re: Dumb generic question about reply messages...

    On 06.05.2008 23:40, Q wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >
    >> On 06.05.2008 15:41, Q wrote:
    >>
    >> > Sorry about my other reply, sent just before I got this. You can
    >> > just discard the test mail I sent you.

    >>
    >> Was discarded automagically by Spamassassin .. :-)

    >
    > Heh, yeah, I got the bounce message. One of the downsides to sending
    > from coffee shops is that their networks are abused often enough to get
    > them on blacklists, which is I guess what happened here. (Can't tell,
    > since your bounce message lies, saying jay at your domain is a no-good
    > recipient.)
    >
    > [followup set to mozilla.general]
    >


    The system bounces sometimes as high as 8,000+ each day so I ain't gonna
    go back and peruse the logs. :-)

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  10. Checking bcc correctness

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 06.05.2008 15:49, Mark Hansen wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    >> On 05/06/08 13:01, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>> On 06.05.2008 13:44, Mark Hansen wrote:
    >>>
    >>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>
    >>>> On 05/06/08 11:22, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>>> On 06.05.2008 09:52, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> chicagofan wrote:
    >>>>>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>>>>>> On 05.05.2008 23:37, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> chicagofan wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> Someone has asked a group of people on a mail list to check *our
    >>>>>>>>>> replies*... to HER messages... to be sure we are not sending mail to
    >>>>>>>>>> someone she has bcc'd on her original message... who doesn't want our
    >>>>>>>>>> mail.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Aside from the *easy* solution, which I am going to suggest to her, I
    >>>>>>>>>> don't think I've ever seen an address added to my reply addresses, from
    >>>>>>>>>> someone else's blind copy original. Does that happen with SM, or any
    >>>>>>>>>> mail reader? bj
    >>>>>>>>> no. If its bcc, then you don't know who the blind versions went to.
    >>>>>>>>> Therefore, there'd be no addresses to add.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> If you suspect a Bcc list then in the rec'd message click on "Reply to All"
    >>>>>>>> and the bcc's will show up as cc's. :-)
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> So, if I reply to that message "Reply All" as you would on a list [without
    >>>>>>> looking at the original's address list]... I *will* be replying... to any and
    >>>>>>> everyone she bcc's? I didn't think that would happen.
    >>>>>>> bj
    >>>>>> no it wouldn't.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> It does in TB 2.0.0.14 here as tested and confirmed.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Are you saying that when you receive a message in TB which was sent including
    >>>> blind carbon copy recipients, that you (one of the recipient of the message)
    >>>> can see those BCC addresses?!?
    >>>>
    >>>> If so, something is seriously broken somewhere...
    >>>>
    >>>> Those are supposed to be stripped by the mail delivery agent when delivering
    >>>> the e-mail to the recipient.
    >>> If I do "Reply ALL" they appear as CC's.
    >>>

    >> Wow. I don't have the RFC reference handy, but I recall reading that the mail
    >> delivery agent is supposed to strip those out. If the e-mail recipient can
    >> see the BCC list, the MDA is broken.
    >>
    >> Consider this: What is the point of the BCC list if the recipient can see
    >> the list just as well as the CC list?

    >
    > Based on "local" only testing I'd say that there is something amiss with
    > the MTA on my server .. well, not "mine" but that of my host provider
    > Verio. I'll have to pursue this with their support.
    >

    Here's how to check BCC function. Send a message to {someone} with a Bcc
    to yourself. Now, you have two copies of the message, one in your "sent"
    folder, which WILL have the BCC, and one in your incoming mail, which
    should NOT have the bcc. Not anywhere. You can use ^U to view all the
    headers, so you don't depend on header display options to find out.

    The outgoing message for delivery should not contain Bcc entries.

    --
    Bill Davidsen
    "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
    the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot

  11. Re: Dumb generic question about reply messages...

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 06.05.2008 15:03, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    >> On 06.05.2008 13:44, Mark Hansen wrote:
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>
    >>> Those are supposed to be stripped by the mail delivery agent when delivering
    >>> the e-mail to the recipient.

    >> More thoughts ..... Running many different domains but on the same
    >> server using the same sendmail, smtp, etc. Possible cross
    >> contamination?? Dunno, can't test completely 100% sterile.
    >>

    >
    > Ok, interesting .....
    >
    > I sent an email with multiple Bcc's from my Cox account to my account on
    > my own server. The Bcc's did NOT show up as CC's. I sent and email from
    > account on MY server to my COX account and the Bcc's did NOT show up.
    >
    > I sent an email with 12 Bcc's from MY server to another of my accounts
    > on MY server and they ALL showed up as CC's ... go figure, not a clue
    > and now not really concerned any longer as it seems to be working as
    > intended. However, I will delve a bit in to sendmail, etc.
    >

    You should, that's *very* wrong. Bcc should be secure, since it's used
    either to keep a lurker in the loop (morally dubious), or to send to
    multiple people without exposing their addresses. That's only polite,
    and good practice. I do that with newsletters as an alternative to
    sending one newsletter per message.

    --
    Bill Davidsen
    "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
    the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot

  12. Re: Dumb generic question about reply messages...

    On 07.05.2008 10:53, Bill Davidsen wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> On 06.05.2008 15:03, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>
    >>> On 06.05.2008 13:44, Mark Hansen wrote:
    >>>
    >>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>
    >>>> Those are supposed to be stripped by the mail delivery agent when delivering
    >>>> the e-mail to the recipient.
    >>> More thoughts ..... Running many different domains but on the same
    >>> server using the same sendmail, smtp, etc. Possible cross
    >>> contamination?? Dunno, can't test completely 100% sterile.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Ok, interesting .....
    >>
    >> I sent an email with multiple Bcc's from my Cox account to my account on
    >> my own server. The Bcc's did NOT show up as CC's. I sent and email from
    >> account on MY server to my COX account and the Bcc's did NOT show up.
    >>
    >> I sent an email with 12 Bcc's from MY server to another of my accounts
    >> on MY server and they ALL showed up as CC's ... go figure, not a clue
    >> and now not really concerned any longer as it seems to be working as
    >> intended. However, I will delve a bit in to sendmail, etc.
    >>

    > You should, that's *very* wrong. Bcc should be secure, since it's used
    > either to keep a lurker in the loop (morally dubious), or to send to
    > multiple people without exposing their addresses. That's only polite,
    > and good practice. I do that with newsletters as an alternative to
    > sending one newsletter per message.
    >


    If you email from the group, Spamassassin catches it ... :-)

    And as I mentioned in the reply, it's been corrected.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  13. Re: Dumb generic question about reply messages...

    Glenn wrote:
    > On approximately 5/6/2008 12:35 PM, came the following characters from the
    > keyboard of chicagofan:
    >> Glenn wrote:
    >>> On approximately 5/5/2008 9:17 PM, came the following characters from
    >>> the keyboard of chicagofan:
    >>>> Someone has asked a group of people on a mail list to check *our
    >>>> replies*... to HER messages... to be sure we are not sending mail to
    >>>> someone she has bcc'd on her original message... who doesn't want
    >>>> our mail.
    >>>>
    >>>> Aside from the *easy* solution, which I am going to suggest to her, I
    >>>> don't think I've ever seen an address added to my reply addresses,
    >>>> from someone else's blind copy original. Does that happen with SM,
    >>>> or any mail reader? bj
    >>>
    >>> There are a few mail systems that do (stupidly) preserve Bcc: headers
    >>> in emails; usually only to people that are subscribers to the same
    >>> system.
    >>>
    >>> Further, if you look in your own Sent box, you will see Bcc: for your
    >>> own outgoing messages.
    >>>
    >>> Either of these could cause confusion for the original sender... but if
    >>> she is that confused, maybe she doesn't know the difference between
    >>> Cc: and Bcc:, either.

    >>
    >> She says the friend [which she bcc'd] is complaining about receiving the
    >> mail list replies... from people who were *copied* on the original
    >> message. The initiator is using Apple mail, I don't know about the
    >> complainant, and only one other person on the *copied* list, is also
    >> using Apple mail.
    >>
    >> I'm using SM and the other person is using AOL mail. Before I tell her
    >> the simple thing to do is to stop Bcc'ing this person... on mail to
    >> others she doesn't want to correspond with, and make her mad, I'd like to
    >> know, I'm safe telling her I am not sending her friend any mail. bj

    >
    > So it sounds like Jay has a system like I referred to in my first
    > paragraph!
    >
    > Regarding your situation, I'm not so sure what Apple Mail does or
    > expects... but I do know that it incorrectly creates MIME attachments in a
    > number of different ways, as well as stretching the expectations of what
    > the destination system might display. So I wouldn't be terribly surprised
    > to learn that Apple Mail might also leave in the Bcc: line... especially
    > now that it is Unix based...
    >
    > So most Windows email clients are SMTP based... while they may (and
    > Thunderbird and SeaMonkey do) compose messages containing Bcc: headers, and
    > preserve those in the Sent box, the process of sending strips those
    > headers (i.e. they are not sent). Instead, the complete collection of To:
    > Cc: and Bcc: recipients are sent via the SMTP RCPT (Recipient) command to
    > the SMTP server, and then the message is sent (sans Bcc: header). The SMTP
    > server may add headers, may check for and delete Bcc: (but won't find one
    > from Mozilla clients), may check for and add a Date: header if missing (but
    > will be there from Mozilla clients), may add Received: header, and may add
    > other headers. It won't read or interpret the To: and Cc: lines to
    > attempt to find recipients... it expects the mail client provided those via
    > RCPT commands.
    >
    > I actually don't know what Mozilla clients do with incoming Bcc: headers,
    > but from Jay's reports, it sounds like it includes them all when doing
    > Reply All. Which is not unreasonable, given that the Bcc: header shouldn't
    > be there in the first place; but if you have a sent message with a Bcc:,
    > and you say Reply All, it could be that you are ready to "go public" with
    > the list... if not, you can use "Edit Message as New", to obtain the same
    > list, including the same Bcc: list.
    >
    > So Unix predates SMTP, and in particular sendmail has two modes of
    > operation... one is SMTP-like, where the recipients are specified on the
    > command line, and the body is passed, but a "more convenient" scheme is
    > often used... sendmail is told to find the To: Cc: and Bcc: headers and
    > send the email to them. Now it is possible to configure sendmail to strip
    > the Bcc: headers before actually sending, and it is also possible to
    > configure sendmail to not stript the Bcc: headers before sending, IIRC.
    > Unix has many fine SMTP servers also, but many Unix systems are configured
    > to use "Unix mail" protocols both for sending and receiving (yep, they
    > predate POP too).
    >
    > I don't know what mail server AOL uses internally, whether homebrew, or
    > sendmail, but they have also been known to leave Bcc: headers intact, at
    > least when delivering to other AOL users... of course the standard AOL
    > client doesn't (usually) show the Bcc: header, but alternative clients
    > can...
    >
    > So your situation sounds plausible. If your friend would like to send an
    > email to test@nevcal.com, and Bcc: you, I could verify the existence of the
    > Bcc: header or not.



    Thanks, but she wouldn't be interested in that. Her solution is to tell
    everyone else to watch their headers. The more I've read, I believe she put
    her friend in the CC list, and not bcc. I'm going to suggest to her to
    separate her messages to her other friend, if this problem continues.

    I think SM is working as it should, and I appreciate everyone responding to
    confirm that for me.
    bj

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2