@BrianFluet, to answer your query re. the reasoning behind BCCing to a Distribution List.
When you suggested, above, "Have you considered using distribution lists instead of BCC?" your suggestion was helpful because BCCs will only be despatched by some providers these days if the "Suppress BCC field listings in outgoing email" option has not been checked in Pegasus's "Tools" menu and because when such a BCC is then received by someone who uses Pegasus Mail (or perhaps some other sophisticated email client) and who inspects the message in the "Raw Data" window, then they can see the third email address involved, i.e. an email address additional to that of the sender and the receiver. In the "Raw Data" of such a BCCed email the following appears on the 10th line:
X-Apparently-To: [the email address entered in the BCC field]
But, unfortunately, re-testing today your suggested route of avoiding such revelation of the BCC recipient's address to the prime recipient, I have found that using your suggestion of putting the BCC address into a Distribution List, and then posting that Distribution List's code into the BCC line of the outgoing email results in exactly the same revelation as occurs when using the BCC field. In the "Raw Data" of emails which are received because of their inclusion in a Distribution List the following entry also appears on the 10th line of the "Raw Data":
X-Apparently-To: [the email address included in the Distribution List entered in the BCC field]
So, as far as I know, at the moment there is not a way of ensuring that the identity of a BCC recipient cannot be seen in Pegasus's "Raw Data" view. And that means that sending BCCs now involves a risk.
So, thanks to Stuart McLachlan, above, we have learnt that we can at least still send BCCs provided we choose not to suppress the revelation of the BCC email address, and my tests show that your suggestion of using a Distribution List to suppress the BCC email address doesn't get around the problem of the BCC email address being made visible in "Raw Data" view, unfortunately.
@BrianFluet, to answer your query re. the reasoning behind BCCing to a Distribution List.
When you suggested, above, _"Have you considered using distribution lists instead of BCC?"_ your suggestion was helpful because BCCs will only be despatched by some providers these days if the "Suppress BCC field listings in outgoing email" option has not been checked in Pegasus's "Tools" menu and because when such a BCC is then received by someone who uses Pegasus Mail (or perhaps some other sophisticated email client) and who inspects the message in the "Raw Data" window, then they can see the third email address involved, i.e. an email address additional to that of the sender and the receiver. In the "Raw Data" of such a BCCed email the following appears on the 10th line:
X-Apparently-To: [the email address entered in the BCC field]
But, unfortunately, re-testing today your suggested route of avoiding such revelation of the BCC recipient's address to the prime recipient, I have found that using your suggestion of putting the BCC address into a Distribution List, and then posting that Distribution List's code into the BCC line of the outgoing email results in exactly the same revelation as occurs when using the BCC field. In the "Raw Data" of emails which are received because of their inclusion in a Distribution List the following entry also appears on the 10th line of the "Raw Data":
X-Apparently-To: [the email address included in the Distribution List entered in the BCC field]
So, as far as I know, at the moment there is not a way of ensuring that the identity of a BCC recipient cannot be seen in Pegasus's "Raw Data" view. And that means that sending BCCs now involves a risk.
So, thanks to Stuart McLachlan, above, we have learnt that we can at least still send BCCs provided we choose not to suppress the revelation of the BCC email address, and my tests show that your suggestion of using a Distribution List to suppress the BCC email address doesn't get around the problem of the BCC email address being made visible in "Raw Data" view, unfortunately.
edited Aug 5 '22 at 3:50 pm