> > 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
