Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote in <20250423194645.ga12...@rafa.eu.org>: |Dnia 23.04.2025 o godz. 20:32:31 Mike Teplynin via Postfix-users pisze: |> |>> Why do you want to break Bcc by recording all envelope recipients in |>> headers? Unless you can guarantee that all messages are |>> single-recipient, or that Bcc is never used/intended by the user, |>> adding such headers is likely a mistake. |> |> That's an interesting point, I hadn't thought of that case. Is there a |> way to avoid that but also keeping the "normal" recipients in custom |> header? | |Well, the very way Bcc works is that Bcc recipients are put in the \ |envelope, |but they aren't put into "To:" or "Cc:" headers in the message. So if you |want to add recipients that are in envelope, but aren't in "To:" or "Cc:" |headers, then you're breaking Bcc by definition. If you want to add |recipients that are in the envelope and already are in "To:" or "Cc:" |headers, what's the point of it?
RFC 5322 it is, it defines There are three ways in which the "Bcc:" field is used. In the first case, when a message containing a "Bcc:" field is prepared to be sent, the "Bcc:" line is removed even though all of the recipients (including those specified in the "Bcc:" field) are sent a copy of the message. In the second case, recipients specified in the "To:" and "Cc:" lines each are sent a copy of the message with the "Bcc:" line removed as above, but the recipients on the "Bcc:" line get a separate copy of the message containing a "Bcc:" line. (When there are multiple recipient addresses in the "Bcc:" field, some implementations actually send a separate copy of the message to each recipient with a "Bcc:" containing only the address of that particular recipient.) Finally, since a "Bcc:" field may contain no addresses, a "Bcc:" field can be sent without any addresses indicating to the recipients that blind copies were sent to someone. Which method to use with "Bcc:" fields is implementation dependent, but refer to the "Security Considerations" section of this document for a discussion of each. I only ever saw the first, but implemented the third as a compile-time option now. (I did it regulary after John Levine hinted that (i have forgøtten the context), but later decided to go back by default.) --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) _______________________________________________ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
