r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[Core] Discuss core issues

Graham
15-May-2006
[4406x2]
I think those fields are telling the email client how to send them. 
 It is up to you to implement them.
I can't think of any reason why an email client should ever receive 
an email with a bcc field.
Joe
15-May-2006
[4408x5]
Graham, I tried that but you get the same email than before with 
a different recipient but no BCC. I want to use BCC for some archiving 
project so I want to preserve the original To field like in real 
Bcc messages
Graham, I am not in the corporate world, but when I was Bcc was one 
of the hottest features, so many people used it to copy managers 
without the recipients being aware. I did like that use but it was 
widely accepted method to keep people in the loop
I did like
 --> I meant I didn't like
A semi-solution to this problem has been posted in RAMBO http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/rambo.r?id=4103&
This is a hack because the message shows the original headers so 
it's not true bcc but it partly solves my problem thanks
Brock
15-May-2006
[4413x2]
Joe, I had problems with BCC in a corporate mass emailing I did. 
 Even though it did not display the email address in the mail client, 
if you viewed the header of the mail message the BCC content was 
there.
A disgruntled recepient spammed the entire BCC list indicating our 
company didn't care or respect their privacy... just my luck.. .this 
was the first attempt to use Rebol for a valuable task at this job!! 
:-(
Maxim
15-May-2006
[4415]
<ouch!>
Joe
15-May-2006
[4416x2]
smtp-port: 	open [scheme: 'esmtp]
msg:		head insert insert tail net-utils/export o-h newline msg
insert		smtp-port reduce [v-from reduce [v-to] msg]   	
insert		smtp-port reduce [v-from reduce [v-bcc] msg]
Hi Brock, this is how I fixed the bcc issue. I set up the right headers 
in o-h and then send the to message and afterwards the bcc message
Anton
16-May-2006
[4418x2]
Joe, did you mean that the BCC field with all the addresses should 
appear in the header of every recipient's email ?
If so, then that's not how it's supposed to work. BCC really does 
mean "blind carbon copy". The recipient should have no way of knowing 
other addresses. Your only standards-conformant remedy is to use 
CC.
Henrik
16-May-2006
[4420]
is system/locale ever used for anything beyond the date requester? 
it would be nice if it were possible to localize date! type
Gabriele
16-May-2006
[4421x3]
send - i think there is a lot of confusion here
the BCC header field is a field used by mail clients to let users 
type addresses that will *not* be included in the header. it is, 
basically, a user interface. back at the time mail clients did not 
have a gui, and just processed mail from a file or by letting you 
type them on the terminal
so what a mail client does, is reading the mail, collecting the addresses 
from to, cc, and bcc, removing the bcc lines, and then sending the 
message to the collected addresses.
Pekr
16-May-2006
[4424]
yes, B should stand for Blind .... it should prevent disclosing the 
person, you sent copy to ....
Gabriele
16-May-2006
[4425x6]
but send is not a mail client. it is a function to send email messages.
what send does (and should do!) is sending the specified message 
to the specified list of addresses. send does *not* collect the addresses 
from the mail header.
to make things easier, send will fill in a default mail header if 
the user has not provided one. however, if you are after something 
more complex than send [luke-:-rebol-:-com] "hi!" then you probably will 
want to pass your own header.
this header is sent as-is, except for a couple things such as setting 
To if you haven't set it (this is so you can have a header template 
and send many messages with it easily)
what send does *not* do and *should not* do is remove or change other 
header lines. in particular it will not remove any bcc: lines. the 
reason is, that you should *not* pass them at all, because it makes 
no sense.
now, since this is a very common error among users, it may be useful 
to let send remove bcc. personally, i will vote against this, because 
i prefer educating users (documentation) rather than keeping them 
stupid and happy. ;) even in the case we do it, send is still *not* 
collecting the addresses from bcc anyway - so we're just wasting 
time removing something that someone wasted time adding.
Graham
16-May-2006
[4431]
how about implementing an 'email function that does bcc etc?
Gabriele
16-May-2006
[4432]
so what you need to do now to send a message is - just send/header 
[list of addresses] msg header, with header being composed correctly 
- to should have what you want your recipients to see in to, from 
should have what you want your recipients to see in from, and so 
on; there should *not* be any bcc lines.
Graham
16-May-2006
[4433]
It just needs to wrap around send.
Gabriele
16-May-2006
[4434x2]
graham: that's a good idea and the desktop already has something 
like that, a gui that lets you type to subject and message. we could 
just add bcc and cc
also, i think there are a couple of mail clients written in rebol 
around :)
Graham
16-May-2006
[4436]
Something basic that can be enhanced by the user so this confusion 
is cleared up permanently
Gabriele
16-May-2006
[4437x3]
yes, but is it easier to write:
email [to: [graham-:-somewhere] from: [me-:-here] bcc: [carl-:-there] subject: 
"something"] msg
instead of using send directly?
Graham
16-May-2006
[4440x2]
looks good
email/attach
Volker
16-May-2006
[4442x4]
IMHO that are to much internals. I would add bcc to send. First, 
if you use bcc, its almost 100% a privacy issue. So at least no bcc. 
Second, users read "email", they know email and email has bcc. What 
happens inside the mail-client they have no clue. So bcc should also 
be added to the header-list IMHO. At least as option, send/bcc or 
such. Should not be much parsing and things works a lot more right. 
As this discussion proves.
But interesting thread :)
header-list -> recipient-list
'sends first argument.
Gabriele
16-May-2006
[4446]
volker, i'm not sure what you're suggesting.
Volker
16-May-2006
[4447x3]
To pass recipients in the bcc too, parse that.
  send/header [x-:-y] text [bcc: "[a-:-b]"]
-> mail goes to [x-:-y] and [a-:-b]
and bcc is cleared.
IMHO that is straightforward without guru-knowledge.
Gabriele
16-May-2006
[4450x4]
doesn't make sense - it should parse to: too in that case, and the 
address list would just be discarded?
better to allow something like the email function above
send [to: ...] msg     where send detects this checking for a set-word?
it seems to only add confusion to me. ymmv.
Volker
16-May-2006
[4454x2]
Not mm, Brocks. "Joe, I had problems with BCC in a corporate mass 
emailing I did.  Even though it did not display the email address 
in the mail client, if you viewed the header of the mail message 
the BCC content was there."
And yes, if i put 'to in the header in my client, i expect it works 
in send/header too.