smtplib & Bcc
robin at jessikat.fsnet.co.uk
Fri Feb 21 19:15:54 CET 2003
In article <mailman.1045835792.18746.python-list at python.org>, Steven
Taschuk <staschuk at telusplanet.net> writes
>Quoth Steve Holden:
>> Right so far. RFC821 = SMTP protocol, RFC822 = mail message format (nowadays
>> superseded by RFC2822, I believe).
>Ah, yes, I'd forgotten. And now that I look, I see that RFC 821
>has also been superseded, by ... you guessed it, RFC 2821.
>> I *believe* (and this isn't based on a reading of the RFCs, so shoot me down
>> if you like) that Bcc recipients of a message are simply not mentioned in
>> the headers. They get a copy, but there won't be a "Bcc:" header in the
>> message. [...]
>I've just glanced in RFC 2822 (section 3.6.3); it gives "three
>ways in which the Bcc: field is used", without giving any of them
>special normative status. They are: (1) remove Bcc: header, send
>same copy to everybody; (2) send version without Bcc: header to
>To: and Cc: recipients, but send Bcc: recipients different version
>including Bcc: header; (3) remove addresses from Bcc: header but
>leave it, empty, in the message (acknowledges that copies were
>sent to somebody, but doesn't divulge who).
>My suggestion of sending each Bcc: recipient their own copy with
>only their own address in the Bcc: line is described under (2) as
>something "some implementations actually" do. Not quite the
>endorsement I had hoped for the One True Bcc: Policy. <sigh>
this thread has given us a good insight into what we should actually do.
Thanks to all who replied.
More information about the Python-list