Prev: Sendmail permissions
Next: Hold all outgoing emails for x minutes before sending
From: terryc on 8 May 2010 09:34
On Fri, 07 May 2010 13:57:03 -0700, D. Stussy wrote:


> There are valid uses for BCC'ing all the recipients,
Such as any message sent to a user on a MS operating system. {:-)
From: Grant Taylor on 8 May 2010 11:35
D. Stussy wrote:

> For example, if one decides to reject all HTML-formatted e-mail (with the
> proper MIME headers), then one should do so by responding with a "554 5.6.1
> HTML-only messages not supported" rejection message at the SMTP DATA
> transmission phase. Accepting and bouncing is not acceptable.

Very good point.

> There are valid uses for BCC'ing all the recipients, especially if
> the goal is to hide each recipient's mailbox from the others because
> it is known to the sender that the recipients don't know each other
> and have asked for privacy against disclosure of each of their
> respective mailboxes.

Very true.

However, one easy work around to this particular scenario is for the
sender to send the message To: them selves. That way they have the BCCs
like they want and they have a To: address, like filters like these are
wanting.



Grant. . . .
From: Grant Taylor on 8 May 2010 17:07
Joe Zeff wrote:
> Considering how many clueless spammers[1] put all of the addresses on
> the BCC line, there are a good number of people[2] who filter all
> mail with the delivery list suppressed into the trash as it comes in.
> Sending it to yourself with the rest of the addresses in the BCC line
> avoids that.

And it is simply a matter of education for the end users that try that
and wonder why their message was treated as spam.



Grant. . . .
From: D. Stussy on 9 May 2010 18:38
"Grant Taylor" <gtaylor(a)riverviewtech.net> wrote in message
news:hs40ba$3ec$2(a)tncsrv01.tnetconsulting.net...
> D. Stussy wrote:
> > ...
> > There are valid uses for BCC'ing all the recipients, especially if
> > the goal is to hide each recipient's mailbox from the others because
> > it is known to the sender that the recipients don't know each other
> > and have asked for privacy against disclosure of each of their
> > respective mailboxes.
>
> Very true.
>
> However, one easy work around to this particular scenario is for the
> sender to send the message To: them selves. That way they have the BCCs
> like they want and they have a To: address, like filters like these are
> wanting.

I agree, and I have occasionally done that in the past.

Another construct has been to identify the "To:" field as a list - "Friends
of <sender>", without listing the individual recipients.


From: D. Stussy on 9 May 2010 18:41
"Grant Taylor" <gtaylor(a)riverviewtech.net> wrote in message
news:hs4jr8$851$2(a)tncsrv01.tnetconsulting.net...
> Joe Zeff wrote:
> > Considering how many clueless spammers[1] put all of the addresses on
> > the BCC line, there are a good number of people[2] who filter all
> > mail with the delivery list suppressed into the trash as it comes in.
> > Sending it to yourself with the rest of the addresses in the BCC line
> > avoids that.
>
> And it is simply a matter of education for the end users that try that
> and wonder why their message was treated as spam.

That's his choice.

The RFC way of sending the message is that if all recipients are BCC'ed,
the "Bcc:" header is to appear in the message with a blank RHS. This is
the only case where a blank header RHS is permitted. Therefore, the
message is NOT lacking a recipient header.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Sendmail permissions
Next: Hold all outgoing emails for x minutes before sending