Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.mail.headers > #37
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.mail.headers |
| Subject | Bcc: according to RFC 5322 |
| Date | 2024-07-25 17:59 +0300 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <20240725175947.ec0c6aab9964a00f7301992b@g{oogle}mail.com> (permalink) |
Over on the Sypheed mailing list, we are having a discussin
about the interpretatio of RFC 5322 with regard to the Bcc:
field:
<https://www.sraoss.jp/pipermail/sylpheed/2024-July/007238.html>
Jeremy thinks that the Bcc: recipients shall be concealed not only
from the normal (To: and Cc:) recipients, but also from each other,
and that the standard wording "muddy", whereas I think the stardard
is clear in that the Bcc: recipeints shall be concealed /at least/
from the To: and Cc: recipietns, but may see one another. We need
beg educated opinions on the matter:
Jeremy Cook to Anton Shepelev:
> > Jeremy Cook:
> >
> > > RFC 5322 muddies the waters a bit by saying:
> > >
> > > 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.)
> > >
> > > As written, this is ambiguous, and seems to suggest
> > > that "other implementations" might actually keep the
> > > entire BCC line with all listed addresses.
> >
> > The only requirement for Bcc: is that it be absent form
> > the messages sent to the To: and Cc: recipients. The
> > standard does not regulate whether the Bcc-ers
> > themselves can see one another.
>
> I strongly disagree. I think the standard makes it clear
> that Bcc recipients are not supposed to see one another.
> They are supposed to be secret and concealed.
>
> The RFC says "The "Bcc:" field (where the "Bcc" means
> "Blind Carbon Copy") contains addresses of recipients of
> the message whose addresses are not to be revealed to
> other recipients of the message."
I see it this way: there are three groups of recipients:
1. To:
2. Cc:
3. Bcc:
When talking about the Bcc: group, the phrase `other
recepients' refers to recipients that are not in the Bcc:
group, and therefore in To: and Cc: . Observe also that
this interpretation of mine is the only one that makes the
entire RFC internally consistent, because below it allows
two /implementation-dependent/ usages of the Bcc: header,
quote (sans paretheses):
1. the "Bcc:" line is removed even though all of the
recipients are sent a copy of the message.
2. 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.
As you see, recipents are operated on group level, by
inclusion and removal of the entire Bcc: header, rather than
editing its contents. Then it remarks that the strict
policy you defend is /also/ allowed:
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.
Item 1, by the way, satisfies your requirement by removing
the Bcc: header altogether!
> I'm sure that is not true. It nowhere says that
> limitation anywhere in the RFC. BCC recipients are
> supposed to be private, not disclosed to others.
Bcc recipients are not disclosed to other, non-Bcc
recipients.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
Back to comp.mail.headers | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar
Bcc: according to RFC 5322 Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2024-07-25 17:59 +0300
Re: Bcc: according to RFC 5322 Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2024-07-25 17:32 -0500
Re: Bcc: according to RFC 5322 Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2024-07-26 01:46 +0300
Re: Bcc: according to RFC 5322 Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2024-07-25 21:03 -0500
Re: Bcc: according to RFC 5322 "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2024-07-26 22:40 +1000
Re: Bcc: according to RFC 5322 Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2024-07-28 00:35 +0300
Re: Bcc: according to RFC 5322 Sirius <sirius@trudheim.com> - 2024-07-26 16:09 +0200
Re: Bcc: according to RFC 5322 Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2024-07-28 00:43 +0300
csiph-web