Path: csiph.com!tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net!tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net!.POSTED.omega.home.tnetconsulting.net!not-for-mail
From: Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: Bcc: according to RFC 5322
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 17:32:34 -0500
Organization: TNet Consulting
Message-ID: <v7ujq2$1qc$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
References: <20240725175947.ec0c6aab9964a00f7301992b@g{oogle}mail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 22:32:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net; posting-host="omega.home.tnetconsulting.net:198.18.1.11"; logging-data="1868"; mail-complaints-to="newsmaster@tnetconsulting.net"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <20240725175947.ec0c6aab9964a00f7301992b@g{oogle}mail.com>
Xref: csiph.com comp.mail.headers:38

On 7/25/24 09:59, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> 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,

My long standing understanding based on personal experience is that BCC 
is really an MUA construct wherein the BCC recipient(s) will receive a 
copy of the message as they are added as an SMTP envelope recipient 
while expressly being excluded from the RFC 5322 (et al.) headers.

As such, BCC recipients would also not see themselves or other BCC 
recipients.



-- 
Grant. . . .