Re: Identities and Bcc:

[Brian Stafford <brian stafford uklinux net>]

On Wed, 29 August 12:14 Jules Bean wrote:

> Hmm.  Putting a copy into a mailbox is normally called Fcc
> (file-carbon-copy). It's not a header, although some programs (PINE)
> manifest it as a pseudo header.

I know.

> Bcc: is quite different, surely: it's another pseudo-header (in that
> it shouldn't appear in the body of the message) but it determines
> additional email recipients.

The SMTP envelope determines mail recipients.  Mail headers have nothing
to do with mail delivery (think about a mailing list).  MUAs typically
set the To/Cc and Bcc headers similarly to the SMTP envelope but they
have no normative requirement to do so.

Bcc: is a real header and always has been.  It may legitimately appear in
a message listing zero or more mailbox addresses.  Its purpose was described
in RFC 822 (published 1982) and has not changed since.  RFC 2822 describes
it too.

The confusion probably arises because many MTA and MUA implementors or admins
thereof can't be bothered to read the standards.  Sendmail for one has been
known to be configured to strip Bcc: headers (violating RFC 821) from mail
because the admin didn't actually understand what Bcc was for.

> I suppose attaching one to an identity can be useful: when I am using
> my identity "Acme Foo Sales <sales@acmefoocorp.com>", I always want to 
> Bcc: the messages to <board@acmefoocorp.com> so they know what I'm
> saying in the company's name?

If the real intent of the Bcc: in the identity is for the purpose you describe
above, then all is well.  The message will be transmitted twice as expected.
However, if as I am supposing, it is to create an "Fcc" copy by having the
message delivered to an additional mailbox *via SMTP*, the Bcc: mechanism is
not doing what the user expects.

Brian