Re: The need for two headers

At 03:22 04/02/09 +1100, Brett Watson wrote:

>On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 02:42, Steven F Siirila wrote:
> > Be careful here.  If I send a message to multiple recipients at a given
> > site, all as "Bcc:" or equivalent, I may not want all of the recipients to
> > see the complete delivery path information if it's going to contain all of
> > the recipient's addresses.  That would defeat the purpose of "Bcc:".
>
>Mail goes from one sender to one or more recipients. You can think of the
>outgoing mail route as a tree, branching at certain points where mail is
>relayed or forwarded through different hosts.

I prefer to think it as a graph. I often get the same message
from different mailing lists, for example if two groups work
together. I have already said that it would be great if this
could be handled better than it is now (the best thing I know
is procmail taking note of a messageid and then throwing other
messages with the same messageid away, which is a pity).

Regards,   Martin.



>What I would intend to deliver
>to each recipient is information about the particular root-to-leaf path which
>reached them, not that of any other recipient. This means that each recipient
>gets a different bundle of delivery metadata, whereas they all get the same
>message metadata. That's one of the compelling reasons for keeping the two
>bundles separate in the first place: one is static, the other dynamic.
>
>Regards,
>TFBW