3 ms·

There's no reason the blind forward cannot include the original email's recipient list as well. The OP's point is that it should be a simple 1 step process ins

There's no reason the blind forward cannot include the original email's recipient list as well. The OP's point is that it should be a simple 1 step process instead of a multi step process. I suspect they are further suggesting that email clients should modify their behavior so that when someone enters recipients in the BCC list, instead of BCC'ing the recipients, it auto forwards the mail to them (if they do that it would also make sense to pick a different title than BCC to avoid further confusion).

inopinatus 5y ago
There is a reason why not, and it’s that mail clients reply based on the header fields, not the envelope recipients. A separate “blind forward” field in a mail client could be a nice addition, but it too falls apart because drafts might be started in one client and completed in another. In practice, deviating from existing MTA and MUA behaviour as specified in RFCs - included the handling of the Bcc header - produces innumerable edge cases and interoperability gotchas, which is why we try not to fuck with them much. The worst case scenario being, all too commonly, some well-intended script installed by a frustrated sysadmin that tries to fix an impedance mismatch and ends up inadvertently creating either a software laser or an open relay.