[quote user="Greenman"]We each have a choice in the matter. If you don't make the attempt to educate someone, then what's the point of the forum? If someone persists in their troll-like ways, then that is the point at which they will be ignored.[/quote]

Oh yes, we certainly do, but on reading the initial post, I just didn't think there would be much point in undertaking such an attempt. Seems like I was wrong. And I'm glad too :-)

To return to the topic, partly on account of ModernMan's reply, I agree that the default setting had better be changed, and as far as I'm concerned, the same applies to the default copy-to-self setting in Tools | Options | Messages and replies, which I believe should be "On".

Cheers!
Steffan

I use Pegasus mail mainly where I want to sent "mail merge" messages incorporating fields from a database.  And it works great for this.

But something alarming happened today.

Because I wanted to save a copy of a message in a couple places, I sent a message, and on it, bcc'd a gmail account I have, plus my wife's email address, which she checks using Thunderbird.

The message, as received by my gmail address, and by my wife's address using Thunderbird, showed the bcc'd people, right in the normal message header.  The bcc field and its recipients showed up on the recipient end clearly visible.  I could see my wife's address, she could see mine.

Not a big deal on a low level, because we know each other and our addresses.  But how did it come to be that Pegasus mail composed and sent a message showing recipients the bcc recipients?  Kind of defeats the purposes of why the bcc field is there.
 

Check this control setting:

Tools > Options > Outgoing Mail > Sending Mail --- on the right-side pane, under Advanced settings, make sure the box is checked that says "Suppress BCC field listings in outgoing mail".

Regards,
Stan

[quote user="stanvan"]Check this control setting:

Tools > Options > Outgoing Mail > Sending Mail --- on the right-side pane, under Advanced settings, make sure the box is checked that says "Suppress BCC field listings in outgoing mail".

Regards,
Stan
[/quote]

Yup, that did it.

A bit off topic, but what exactly is bcc supposed to be, if not a field where the contents are suppressed?  Having to override a default to do that is a bit like having to override a default so the subject isn't automatically changed to "Your mother wears army boots!"
 

A bit off topic, but what exactly is bcc supposed to be, if not a field

where the contents are suppressed?  Having to override a default to do

that is a bit like having to override a default so the subject isn't

automatically changed to "Your mother wears army boots!"

The people in the Bcc: field are to be hidden from the people on the To; and Cc: list, this is a strict requirement of the RFC.  The people on the Bcc: list do not (i.e. not required by the RFC) have to be hidden  from other people on the Bcc: list.  Personally this is the way I want it to be since in this case the people on the Bcc: list will also know who else got the message.  This is the same way a normal blind copy is done with the office documents, the Bcc: list is sent as a separate sheet of paper to all people on the Bcc: list. 

If you do not want it to work that way then David has provided an option to remove the field entirely.

OK, glad that worked.  I agree... seems the default should be checked to me too... and not sure why "blind" CC can be selected to be visible.  Oh well, its still a great program!

Regards,
Stan

[quote user="Thomas R. Stephenson"]

A bit off topic, but what exactly is bcc supposed to be, if not a field where the contents are suppressed?  Having to override a default to do that is a bit like having to override a default so the subject isn't automatically changed to "Your mother wears army boots!"

The people in the Bcc: field are to be hidden from the people on the To; and Cc: list, this is a strict requirement of the RFC.  The people on the Bcc: list do not (i.e. not required by the RFC) have to be hidden  from other people on the Bcc: list.  Personally this is the way I want it to be since in this case the people on the Bcc: list will also know who else got the message.  This is the same way a normal blind copy is done with the office documents, the Bcc: list is sent as a separate sheet of paper to all people on the Bcc: list. 

If you do not want it to work that way then David has provided an option to remove the field entirely.

[/quote]

This still flies in the face of what people expect a BCC'd email to do. If you want BCC people to see each other, don't BCC them, CC them.

Surely, the default should be to hide all BCC addresses? I was also alarmed when I discovered this. Like everyone else, I assumed that 'blind' addresses would not be seen in the headers. It seems such a strange thing to do. Outlook Express, Google Mail and my BT accounts all hide BCC addresses by default.

The setting in Pegasus Mail should be to hide them too, otherwise email addresses will be (and have been) distributed unintentionally to recipients that were not meant to receive them.

[quote]Surely, the default should be to hide all BCC addresses?[/quote]

The relevant standards don't specify any assumptions among bcc addressees. Pegasus Mail always sends 2 messages - one to the To: and CC: recipients, and one to the BCC: recipients.  The list on the second one can optionally be suppressed.

Most UK ISPs will remove BCC: headers from messages - it probably happens elsewhere too.  It doesn't mean that is correct, or that it conforms to any standard.

Cheers PaulW 

I understand that, and I am not saying that what the ISP's do is correct.

What I am saying is that regardless of what the RFC's stipulate, the average user expects addresses in a BCC field to be truly blind. Most people who use email will expect the default configuration to hide all addresses in the field. Sure, if you want to change this and allow all BCC recipients to see each other, then it may be better to send a separate email to these people and simply CC them? Otherwise, BCC is a waste of time as far as the average user is concerned. Why not simply have several CC fields, where each set of CC recipient addresses cannot see the other set of CC addresses? Just as daft.

If a new user of Pegasus Mail had BCC'd several addresses, then discovered that all the BCC recipients had seen each other, they might choose a new email client...

Just seems illogical to me.

What I am saying is that regardless of what the RFC's stipulate, the

average user expects addresses in a BCC field to be truly blind.

Strange, the RFC does not require this at all, if most people said black was white would it then become white?  I do not think so.  There are too many so called "experts" out there spouting off nonsense that is not true but the users accept this a gospel.  What has really happened is that one or two popular mail server/mail clients  did this one of the three possible ways specified in the RFC and now "everyone" expect all systems to operate in the same manner. 

If as a new user I Bcc: several people in a mail message and the people on the Bcc: list did not see the other on the bcc: list then I would be looking for a new mail client.

RFC 2822 Para 3.6.3

   The "Bcc:" field (where the "Bcc" means "Blind Carbon Copy") contains
   addresses of recipients of the message whose addresses are not to be
   revealed to other recipients of the message.  There are three ways in
   which the "Bcc:" field is used.  In the first case, when a message
   containing a "Bcc:" field is prepared to be sent, the "Bcc:" line is
   removed even though all of the recipients (including those specified
   in the "Bcc:" field) are sent a copy of the message.  In the second
   case, recipients specified in the "To:" and "Cc:" lines each are sent
   a copy of the message with the "Bcc:" line removed as above, but the
   recipients on the "Bcc:" line get a separate copy of the message
   containing a "Bcc:" line.  (When there are multiple recipient
   addresses in the "Bcc:" field, some implementations actually send a
   separate copy of the message to each recipient with a "Bcc:"
   containing only the address of that particular recipient.) Finally,
   since a "Bcc:" field may contain no addresses, a "Bcc:" field can be
   sent without any addresses indicating to the recipients that blind
   copies were sent to someone.  Which method to use with "Bcc:" fields
   is implementation dependent, but refer to the "Security
   Considerations" section of this document for a discussion of each.

Generally you would not want this to be the default because when you are in a corporate environment and sent a Bcc: to the bosses you want all the bosses to know who else got this message.  Even when sending blind paper documents the Bcc: people got a sheet with all of the other Bcc: names on it.  Make sense so they'll not be sending copies along to others that already had a copy.

This still flies in the face of what people expect a BCC'd email to do.

If you want BCC people to see each other, don't BCC them, CC them.

I know Thomas, I understand what PaulW said, and I understand that BCC is a 'capsule' of addresses hidden from other users but not from each other.

As a professional mail user you fully understand the technicalities of email. As a novice, I am starting to understand this through reading through the rfc's etc and gleaning whatever help I can from people such as yourself on this forum.

My point is as I stated above - the average user sees 'blind' and expects *all* addresses in Bcc to be hidden. As you say this is a misunderstanding, a myth. However, despite the technical definition that is Bcc, even major ISP's and mail providers are now ignoring this, and configuring Bcc to be what a user expects.

I don't want someone using Pegasus Mail for a Bcc, then flaming it because it adheres to the rules when others do not.

The average user only assumes this would hide the Bcc: addresses from each other because some so called "expert" or friend has told them this is how it works or this is how it worked in one environment.  There are a lot of things that people "assume' that are not true and this is just another one of them.  FWIW, there are many many mail clients that do not hide a Bcc: address from other bcc: addresses but where the SMTP host is removing the Bcc: field.  A user changing ISPs can very easily get stung by using a new server that does not do this.

Education, not dumbing down the email clients to the lowest common denominator, is the solution.  Do a quick search on Bcc: on the web and you'll get a good idea about the ability of the web to spread bad info on what Bcc: does and does not do.

Thanks, Thomas.

My experience only comprises how I have seen other email clients and web-mail clients handle Bcc, I have not read about or been told about how Bcc is supposed to be used. Until reading this I did not realise that Bcc was designed to work as specified in the rfc. One of the things about Pegasus Mail is that it does abide by the conventions that are supposed to be used. So, thanks for the education.

That's another box ticked.

"...an option to remove the field entirely...."

That is exactly what I want.  Where is that option ? How do I invoke it ?

Tools>Options>Outgoing Mail>Sending Mail>Suppress BCC field listings in outgoing mail

[quote user="Thomas R. Stephenson"]

The people in the Bcc: field are to be hidden from the people on the To; and Cc: list, this is a strict requirement of the RFC.  The people on the Bcc: list do not (i.e. not required by the RFC) have to be hidden  from other people on the Bcc: list.  Personally this is the way I want it to be since in this case the people on the Bcc: list will also know who else got the message.  This is the same way a normal blind copy is done with the office documents, the Bcc: list is sent as a separate sheet of paper to all people on the Bcc: list.  

[/quote]

That is very interesting. Although I had gathered from the help files that there is some "wiggle room" in the usage/definition of Bcc in the RFCs, I had never understood the detail. Thomas has explained it clearly and succinctly and it is much appreciated.

Not knowing this background, I am one of the people who expect that Bcc addresses are always suppressed and so I have always had this option checked in order to achieve that, despite not understanding the reasons for allowing the option.

What we have here is the same problem that Microsoft cause almost everywhere they go: how to respond to the creation of de facto standards when accepted standards already exist?

Thomas has told us that, in fact, Pegasus provides for users to configure it to work with either of the methods allowed by the standard. Microsoft clearly decided many years ago that one method was their chosen way and this has become expected by most people simply because they think Microsoft's way is the "right" way.

Whilst I find it extremely arrogant of Microsoft to have entirely ignored part of the standard (as they have done many times over the years), I also recognise that users' modern expectations need to be catered for. As such, I feel that it would be sensible to have this option checked by default. Leaving the option there and re-writing the help file to better explain the functionality (and reasoning) when it is unchecked would allow new users to get what they expect out-of-the-box but leave the door open for them to be educated and see that there is an alternative which may suit them at times.

In short, support the full breadth of the standards but default to user expectations.

BRRRRNNK !  False.  Vanna will now turn over a vowel for the next contestant

"...Tools>Options>Outgoing Mail>Sending Mail>Suppress BCC field listings in outgoing mail..."

That produces a field, which says...

"...BCC: (Suppressed)..."

I really want the entire field removed; i.e., not there at all

No can do.