Re: To do sendmailism, or not ? (Apparently-To:)

[Florian Overkamp <sim@wit393101.student.utwente.nl>]

On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Matti Aarnio wrote:

> 	I have thought hard wether or not to do what
> 	I consider 'sendmailism'; namely removing the
> 	current 'To: some-comment:;' being generated
> 	at the router when no 'To:' header exists, and
> 	replace that by adding sendmail-like 'Apparently-To:'
> 	header at the delivery time at the mailbox (and
> 	perhaps sm) channels.

I for one think the 'Apparently-To:' solution is a pretty good one. It
makes for a more 'intuitive' interface, e.g. the procmail handling, and it
creates a usefull bit of information.

Consider also:
I have several mail-adresses, with different purposes. A number of times
I'd like to know to what exact address a mail was sent. If a To: header is
not available, I'd have no idea how to find out in the current situation.
If there is an Apparently-To: header, this problem is solved.

Ofcourse the only address in this header should be the exact address that
was given in the appropriate RCPT command during the mail-session. I
don't think this would not compromise the anonimity of 'Undisclosed
recipients' in any way.

---
Florian Overkamp <sim@wit393101.student.utwente.nl>
PGP Key-ID 233FC67D
PGP Fingerprint 00 3F F5 63 DD FB 5D B7  0A 16 0A EC F9 BD 01 97