Re: SPF = Sender Policy Framework
From: Stefan Monnier (monnier_at_iro.umontreal.ca)
Date: 09/24/04
- Next message: Lew Pitcher: "Re: octet vs. byte"
- Previous message: Lars: "Re: LILO guru, anyone???"
- In reply to: Norman L. DeForest: "Re: SPF = Sender Policy Framework"
- Next in thread: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard: "Headers and envelope *are not required to match* and *often do not match*."
- Reply: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard: "Headers and envelope *are not required to match* and *often do not match*."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:20:01 GMT
> A couple of examples where you might want to hide one recipient or
> their address but include the other recipient's address in the "To:"
> header:
These are examples where you care about what the guys on the To and CC
field receive. But if everyone receives a potentially slightly different
copy, they can receive the mail with the Bcc stipped, whereas the guy who's
mentioned on the Bcc can receive a copy that includes himself in the Cc (or
that simply still has the Bcc field unstripped).
Stefan
- Next message: Lew Pitcher: "Re: octet vs. byte"
- Previous message: Lars: "Re: LILO guru, anyone???"
- In reply to: Norman L. DeForest: "Re: SPF = Sender Policy Framework"
- Next in thread: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard: "Headers and envelope *are not required to match* and *often do not match*."
- Reply: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard: "Headers and envelope *are not required to match* and *often do not match*."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|