On 2/24/2014 8:42 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2/24/2014 8:39 AM, Stan Hoeppner stan@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
On 2/24/2014 6:58 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2/24/2014 3:58 AM, Steffen Kaiser skdovecot@smail.inf.fh-brs.de wrote:
I would add a BCC recipient in the MTA. It's more save in such situation. See the thread about qmail and multiple recipients for one mail address.
The only downside to this is all of the original headers are *not* preserved in the BCC copy.
Given this is a function of the MTA,
Says who? I would argue that it is more a function of the MDA.
Says both Steffen's remarks above, and your reply to them. Why you would take exception to my simply reiterating the context is inexplicable.
are you stating with authority that all the dozen or so Unix MTAs behave in this manner? Or are you simply stating the behavior of your MTA, and assuming everyone on the list also uses your MTA?
Obviously the latter (postfix)... apologies for my presumptuousness.
It's not at all obvious, which is why I asked. When one makes a blanket statement such as that above, with 'not' in *bold* print, the statement needs to be qualified. This is precisely why I asked the two questions.
-- Stan