On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 11:43 +0100, Steffen Kaiser wrote: > > however. The intention of this check within the vacation action is to > > prevent > > spurious vacation responses to for example Bcc:'ed deliveries (and perhaps > > multi-drop aliases). > > But _why_ is BCC spurious? There are spurious BCC, but not in general. > If I BCC a message to somebody, I want to know an out-of-office state. > Just like for any CC or TO recipient.
At least one problem is email lists created using aliases. Like every...@company.com.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
