In article <20040413214104.GA9653@jpradley.jpr.com>,
Jean-Pierre Radley <jpr@jpr.com> wrote:
>corrlens typed (on Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 09:23:56PM +0000):
>|
>| I tried mutt and when I read it under unix mail it's showing the bcc:
>| bla@bla.com . Outhouse express is not showing it.
>
>It's your MTA, not mutt.
>
>I have used mutt as my MUA for years, but smail as my MTA and smail does
>NOT transmit a Bcc: header nor its contents. I can't speak for sendmail
>or mmdf or whichever other MTA you might be are using...

The only case in which an MTA might legitimately remove a Bcc: line is when a
message is being submitted in a mode where the recipients are taken from the
headers of the message itself. But this is an inferior mode; the normal method
is for the MUA to specify the recipient list out of band (separately from the
content of the message). In this case, the MTA shouldn't remove any headers,
although enough do that you shouldn't expect a Bcc: line to propagate
successfully if for some reason you *did* want it to appear.

With the normal (out of band) submission method, it is the job of the MUA to
not disclose the blind-copied recipients in the message headers. My
recollection is that an earlier version of mutt did have a bug that caused it
to include a Bcc: line in this case. Current mutt does the right thing.

John
--
John DuBois spcecdt@armory.com KC6QKZ/AE http://www.armory.com/~spcecdt/