On 2/24/2014 8:42 AM, Charles Marcus wrote: > On 2/24/2014 8:39 AM, Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com> wrote: >> On 2/24/2014 6:58 AM, Charles Marcus wrote: >>> On 2/24/2014 3:58 AM, Steffen Kaiser <skdove...@smail.inf.fh-brs.de> >>> wrote: >>>> I would add a BCC recipient in the MTA. It's more save in such >>>> situation. See the thread about qmail and multiple recipients for one >>>> mail address. > >>> The only downside to this is all of the original headers are *not* >>> preserved in the BCC copy. > >> Given this is a function of the MTA, > > Says who? I would argue that it is more a function of the MDA.
Says both Steffen's remarks above, and your reply to them. Why you would take exception to my simply reiterating the context is inexplicable. >> are you stating with authority that all the dozen or so Unix MTAs >> behave in this manner? Or are you simply stating the behavior of your >> MTA, and assuming everyone on the list also uses your MTA? > > Obviously the latter (postfix)... apologies for my presumptuousness. It's not at all obvious, which is why I asked. When one makes a blanket statement such as that above, with 'not' in *bold* print, the statement needs to be qualified. This is precisely why I asked the two questions. -- Stan
