> > Are all "Undisclosed recipient" type emails spam?
>
> nope -- Bcc: is an accepted way to forward if you want to keep some
> people's email addrs secret, for example.
Agreed. Unfortunately there is a low correlation there.
In particular the Sendmail vacation(1) program autoresponds with out
> Are all "Undisclosed recipient" type emails spam?
No. Unfortunately there is a low correlation there.
In particular the Sendmail vacation(1) program autoresponds with out
of the office messages without bothering to add a To: header and
generates these types of messages as a normal course of
"Fox" said:
> If I am getting spam with "Undisclosed recipients" in the header, how would
> the mail server (qmail) have known who to deliver it to had it not been
> spam? Or does the server (qmail) just choose to log messages with bcc's as
> undisclosed recipients even though it knows who the
Yeah, it does happen quite often in some places. Think company-wide email to 10,000 employees where if you listed everyone in the To: field the message would be simply enormous. Some people in these kinds of scenarios used poorly configured mass-mailing software.
C
On Thu, 2002-01-17 at
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:44:00AM -0500, Fox wrote:
> If I am getting spam with "Undisclosed recipients" in the header, how would
> the mail server (qmail) have known who to deliver it to had it not been
> spam? Or does the server (qmail) just choose to log messages with bcc's as
> undisclosed r
If I am getting spam with "Undisclosed recipients" in the header, how would
the mail server (qmail) have known who to deliver it to had it not been
spam? Or does the server (qmail) just choose to log messages with bcc's as
undisclosed recipients even though it knows who the message is to?
Are al
