(*** This bug was imported into bugs.kde.org ***) Package: kmail Version: 1.4 (using KDE 3.0.0 ) Severity: wishlist Installed from: Red Hat Linux 7.2.92 Compiler: gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.2 2.96-109) OS: Linux (i686) release 2.4.9-13 OS/Compiler notes: This can result in embarrasing situations where the recipient of a bcc replies to the original sender with info that they aren't supposed to have. (Submitted via bugs.kde.org) (Called from KBugReport dialog)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 13 April 2002 15:55 corbin@samsix.com wrote: > This can result in embarrasing situations where the recipient of a > bcc replies to the original sender with info that they aren't > supposed to have. Are you talking about a Reply to All? The original sender of course=20 knows to which recipients he sent a bcc. What do you expect? How should messages be labeled as blind carbon=20 copies? Regards Ingo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8uMrkGnR+RTDgudgRAvMVAJ9bEVyn2D18vSsax7lBaI+6YO0VhwCgrgSH MJVjzbersGNqhXpGUDZMPr0=3D =3DQSPZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Am Samstag 13. April 2002 15:55 schrieb corbin@samsix.com: > This can result in embarrasing situations where the recipient of a bcc > replies to the original sender with info that they aren't supposed to hav= e. What do you mean with "isn't labeled effectively"? Can you explain that? Carsten --=20 Carsten Burghardt email: cb@magic-shop.de WWW: http://www.magic-shop.de PGP: http://www.magic-shop.de/Carsten_Burghardt.asc
> What do you mean with "isn't labeled effectively"? Can you explain that? I guess he means that the supposed to be "blind" recipient *does* see the address of the main recipient. At least it was this way the last time I tried (yesterday :-) Volker
On Saturday April 13 2002 08:18 pm Ingo Klöcker wrote: | On Saturday 13 April 2002 15:55 corbin@samsix.com wrote: | > This can result in embarrasing situations where the recipient of a | > bcc replies to the original sender with info that they aren't | > supposed to have. | | Are you talking about a Reply to All? The original sender of course | knows to which recipients he sent a bcc. Yes I know who I sent a bcc to - but *they* didn't know they received a bcc so they did a reply all and now the person NOT bcc'd but on the "To" list knows that others have info that he might consider embarrasing. The andrew system did not include a bcc option because they didn't think it was "done" in polite society. I'm not advocating that though. | | What do you expect? How should messages be labeled as blind carbon | copies? Mh will put something like this: -------------- Blind Carbon Copy ------------------------------ At the top of the mail to the bcc recipients. That makes it really obvious to them that they were bcc'd and shouldn't do a "reply all".
I think its probably a good idea for KMail to implement some check to this effect: 'is one of my configured identities listed as To or Cc of this email ?' and if not - mark it in some special way. The mail filter dialog has one of the available actions 'set Identity' and replying to an email (not filtered) correctly sets the identity to which the original was sent, so KMail already has an identity matching routine and all that needs to be done is to flag messages that failed the identity detection.
Thank you for your feature request. Kmail1 is currently unmaintained so we are closing all wishes. Please feel free to reopen a feature request for Kmail2 if it has not already been implemented. Thank you for your understanding.
Instead of creating a new feature request, please confirm here if the wishlist is still valid for kmail2.