Blind carbon copy

In the context of correspondence, blind carbon copy (abbreviated Bcc:) refers to the practice of sending a message to multiple recipients in such a way that conceals the fact that there may be additional addressees from the complete list of recipients. This concept originally applied to paper correspondence and now also applies to email. [1]

In some circumstances, the typist creating a paper correspondence must ensure that multiple recipients of such a document not see the names of other recipients. To achieve this the typist can:

With email, recipients of a message are specified using addresses in any of these three fields:

It is common practice to use the Bcc: field when addressing a very long list of recipients, or a list of recipients that should not (necessarily) know each other, e.g. in mailing lists. [2]

Contents

Benefits

There are a number of reasons for using this feature:

Visibility

In most implementations, the recipient of an email can see any email address specified by the Sender in the To: or Cc: fields. If on the other hand the Sender has specified addresses in the Bcc: field, the recipient in this case cannot see these Bcc addresses.

The internet standard for e-mail messages is RFC 2822 and the Bcc: header is discussed in section 3.6.3. It is unclear whether Bcc: is designed to ensure the Bcc: addresses are hidden from each other. On the one hand, it says:

The "BCC:" field (where the "BCC" means "Blind Carbon Copy") contains addresses of recipients of the message whose addresses are not to be revealed to other recipients of the message.

It also states:

There are three ways in which the "BCC:" field is used.
  1. In the first case, when a message containing a "BCC:" field is prepared to be sent, the "BCC:" line is removed even though all of the recipients (including those specified in the "BCC:" field) are sent a copy of the message.
  2. In the second case, recipients specified in the "To:" and "CC:" lines each are sent a copy of the message with the "BCC:" line removed as above, but the recipients on the "BCC:" line get a separate copy of the message containing a "BCC:" line. (When there are multiple recipient addresses in the "BCC:" field, some implementations actually send a separate copy of the message to each recipient with a "BCC:" containing only the address of that particular recipient.)
  3. Finally, since a "BCC:" field may contain no addresses, a "BCC:" field can be sent without any addresses indicating to the recipients that blind copies were sent to someone.

Which method to use with Bcc: fields is implementation dependent and may depend on both one's mail user agent (e.g. Outlook, Thunderbird) and mail submission agent (usually provided by one's ISP).

Since the hiding of the Bcc: addresses from other Bcc: addresses is not required by RFC 2822, one cannot assume the Bcc: addresses will be hidden from other Bcc: addresses.

Security considerations

Both RFC 2821 and RFC 2822 discuss problems with Bcc: in their "Security Consideration" sections, in part because, as mentioned above, the processing for the Bcc: header is not standardized and there are several different ways that it can commonly be implemented.

Carbon vs Courtesy

The interpretation of "Bcc:" as "blind courtesy copy" is a backronym and not the original meaning; the historic RFC 733 has an explicit "blind carbon" annotation in its definition of the Bcc: header field syntax. "Cc:" and "Bcc:" mean "carbon copy" and "blind carbon copy" respectively.

Sending courtesy copies of mailing list replies also directly to the author(s) of answered message(s) is a common practice on some lists, and matches a new interpretation of "Cc:" as abbreviation for "courtesy copy".

See also

References

  1. ^ Stout, Chris. "DEAR NERD: Blind carbons hide addresses." Charleston Gazette (West Virginia, USA). 1998-01-18. page P5B. NewsBank record number 100F35638A890441. Retrieved on 2009-09-14 through the Dallas Public Library (Texas, USA) website at http://www.dallaslibrary.org/
  2. ^ Husted, Bill. "Bad e-mail habits can be bothersome, embarrassing" Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The (Georgia, USA). 2009-08-30. page E15. NewsBank record number 103419444. Retrieved on 2009-09-14 through the Dallas Public Library (Texas, USA) website at http://www.dallaslibrary.org/
  3. ^ Boodhoo, Niala; Carey, Bridget (2009-08-25). "Be careful when you 'reply all' to e-mail". Miami Herald. pp. C8.  NewsBank record number 200908250100KNRIDDERFLMIAMIH_poked-08-25-09.

External links