Re: [lamps] HP Issue: Bcc Handling

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

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.

Russ