Re: [lamps] HP Issue: Bcc Handling

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

On 09/11/2020 23:29, Russ Housley wrote:

> DKG:
>
>> On Fri 2020-10-02 10:33:10 -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
>>
>>> Please take a look at RFC 5322, Section 3.6.3.  The proposed direction
>>> seems to be consistent, but you probably want to cite this section.
>> Thanks for this pointer, Russ.  Bcc is a surprisingly tricky thing to
>> get right in all cases.
>>
>> In addition to the guidance in the section you cite, there are unusual
>> tricks or special cases that responsible MUAs will want to do to deal
>> with Bcc in "Sent" folders and "Drafts" folders (the semantics of these
>> folders in most MUAs are subtly different from other folders, and from
>> each other).  Also, there are some subtleties when dealing with Bcc for
>> encrypted e-mail (regardless of header protection) -- i've added a note
>> in the to-do list in https://gitlab.com/dkg/e2e-mail-guidance to try to
>> flesh those out.
>>
>> But after some discussion with Alexey and Bernie, i think we're reaching
>> the conclusion that as complex as the work around Bcc is, it's pretty
>> much orthogonal to protected headers -- if you are doing the right thing
>> with Bcc already, you're likely going to do the right thing with Bcc
>> when generating a message with protected headers and Bcc.  (Conversely,
>> a MUA that screws up Bcc isn't likely to magically get it right because
>> they're implementing protected headers)
>> I'll make an edit to the header protection draft that simplifies the
>> text about Bcc, includes the reference you mention above, and otherwise
>> doesn't drag the draft into too much detail.
> Good observations.  Sounds like a reasonable way forward.

To clarify my position: I am happy to take Bcc discussion out of the 
Header Protection draft, but I would still like to do this work in LAMPS.

Best Regards,

Alexey