At 11:52 AM -0500 12/26/02, Nick Simicich is rumored to have typed:
> Um, there is no reason to send people a separate copy, they still only see
> their own e-mail address once the RFC821 expansion is done.
Yes, and no. Most mailers are configured as you note, but I have seen some
(in retuned or copied mail from my lists) which add X-something* headers
containing each address delivered to the machine in clear. If fifteen people
on a machine are receiving an email in this specific transaction, these odd
configurations will add fifteen X-something header fields each containing one
address.
Again, I think there's no reason the idea of "privacy" should extend to a
poster's email address (if I'm posting to a list, I kinda expect other
subscribers to see my email address, although I _do_ get annoyed at places
like Yahoo! or Mail-Archive which hijack mailing lists they do not own and
post insecure archives on the Web), so there's no way I'd impliment something
like what Mr. Giorgi was looking for. But his unnecessary over-quoting, ASCII
signature, and bothersome top-posting aside, the situation Mr. Bailey notes
_does_ exist on some machines even if it is different than what Mr. Giorgi
was discussing, so if you're really paranoid about security, the only way to
be certain a machine over which you have no control won't expand in clear
additional envelope addresses is to make sure there's only one there.
My hobbiest and commercial lists certainly don't require such process and
bandwidth-intensive "security." Maybe something on the order of an on-line AA
list might?
Charlie
* Naturally, I can't find any specific examples at the moment, and can't
reemmber any specific header field names.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
