undisclosed-recipients

undisclosed-recipients

[Uwe Brauer]

Hi 

From time to time I receive mails like this:

,----
| 
| From: john.doe@gmail.com
| Subject: Important
| To: undisclosed-recipients
| Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 13:24:26 +0100 (53 minutes ago)
| Reply-To: no_reply@gmail.com
`----


How  can I do that myself with gnus. I usually use bcc fields but this
is not the same? Any pointers would be welcome.

Thanks and regards

Uwe Brauer 

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Garreau, Alexandre]

I’d say use Bcc, which possibly won’t be replicated among bcc’ed 
people, while putting “undisclosed-recipients” in the To: fields. 
It will be bogus but your mail client/server will typically notice 
it itself.

However putting “undisclosed recipients” in “To:” when there’s no 
mailing list address seems a common convention among spammers and 
some mail-listing software and features from mail clients (already 
received news from friends like this): do you know where do that 
come from?  maybe to paliate the fact the “To” is mandatory 
according mail RFCs?  Is there a RFC talking about “undisclosed 
recipients”?

Because it is always that two words, sometimes with a dash, 
sometimes without, sometimes with semi-colon, sometimes not, etc.

Any idea?

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Eric Abrahamsen]

"Garreau, Alexandre" <galex-713@galex-713.eu> writes:

> I’d say use Bcc, which possibly won’t be replicated among bcc’ed
> people, while putting “undisclosed-recipients” in the To: fields. It
> will be bogus but your mail client/server will typically notice it
> itself.
>
> However putting “undisclosed recipients” in “To:” when there’s no
> mailing list address seems a common convention among spammers and some
> mail-listing software and features from mail clients (already received
> news from friends like this): do you know where do that come from?
> maybe to paliate the fact the “To” is mandatory according mail RFCs?
> Is there a RFC talking about “undisclosed recipients”?
>
> Because it is always that two words, sometimes with a dash, sometimes
> without, sometimes with semi-colon, sometimes not, etc.
>
> Any idea?

I always thought it was added automatically by a MTA somewhere if you
left the To: field blank. I don't think anyone types it in there manually.

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 463 bytes --]


> "Garreau, Alexandre" <galex-713@galex-713.eu> writes:

> I always thought it was added automatically by a MTA somewhere if you
> left the To: field blank. I don't think anyone types it in there manually.


Well not gnus. I tried it out, he just sent it way and the recipient
does not see a from field with the phrase undisclosed-recipients

If I insert the phrase undisclosed-recipients myself in the TO field,
gnus complain (rightly so) and will not send it.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5025 bytes --]

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Adam Sjøgren]

Uwe writes:

>> I always thought it was added automatically by a MTA somewhere if you
>> left the To: field blank. I don't think anyone types it in there manually.
>
> Well not gnus.

Like Eric Abrahamsen, I think that this bogus value
"undisclosed-recipients" is inserted by Microsoft Exchange, Gmail or
similar, when there is no To: field.

To test this, I tried composing an email in the Gmail web-interface with
two recipients in Bcc: and nowhere else. The resulting emails arrived
with:

  From: Adam Sjøgren <[redacted]@gmail.com>
  Subject: Test Bcc only from Gmail
  To: undisclosed-recipients:;
  Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:06:20 +0100

  From: Adam Sjøgren <[redacted]@gmail.com>
  Subject: Test Bcc only from Gmail
  To: undisclosed-recipients:;
  Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:06:20 +0100

So Gmail inserts the bogus value "undisclosed-recipients:;" in To: when
you only put recipients in the Bcc field and leave To and Cc empty.

Let's try the same from outlook.com:

  From: Adam Sjøgren <[redacted]@outlook.com>
  Subject: This is a test of Bcc only from Outlook.com
  Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 18:17:07 +0000

  From: Adam Sjøgren <[redacted]@outlook.com>
  Subject: This is a test of Bcc only from Outlook.com
  Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 18:17:07 +0000

So at least one part of Microsoft doesn't.

Let's try from some smaller players; Tutanota:

  From:  <[redacted]@tutanota.com>
  Subject: Bcc only from Tutanota
  Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:22:59 +0100 (CET)

  From:  <[redacted]@tutanota.com>
  Subject: Bcc only from Tutanota
  Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:22:59 +0100 (CET) (10 minutes, 42 seconds ago)

nope; but Protonmail does, emulating Google:

  From: Adam Sjøgren <[redacted]@protonmail.com>
  Subject: Bcc only from ProtonMail
  To: undisclosed-recipients:;
  Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 18:27:28 +0000
  Reply-To: Adam Sjøgren <[redacted]@protonmail.com>

  From: Adam Sjøgren <[redacted]@protonmail.com>
  Subject: Bcc only from ProtonMail
  To: undisclosed-recipients:;
  Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 18:27:28 +0000
  Reply-To: Adam Sjøgren <[redacted]@protonmail.com>

Yahoo! Mail doesn't:

  From: Adam Sjøgren <[redacted]@yahoo.com>
  Subject: Bcc only from Yahoo! Mail
  Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 18:28:54 +0000 (UTC)
  Reply-To: Adam Sjøgren <[redacted]@yahoo.com>

  From: Adam Sjøgren <[redacted]@yahoo.com>
  Subject: Bcc only from Yahoo! Mail
  Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 18:28:54 +0000 (UTC)
  Reply-To: Adam Sjøgren <[redacted]@yahoo.com>

And neither does Aol Mail (guess they are the same these days, at least
the email sent from Aol Mail was delivered by a yahoo.com-host):

  From:  <[redacted]@mcom.com>
  Subject: Bcc only from Aol Mail.
  Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 18:31:17 +0000 (UTC)

(I'm too lazy to wait for the other one to arrive; I've got greylisting
on.)


Why do you find it attractive to have this value in To:‽


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "I pragmatically turn my whims into principles!"             Adam Sjøgren
                                                         asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Andreas Schwab]

On Feb 10 2019, Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> wrote:

>   To: undisclosed-recipients:;

This is the RFC2822 group of mailboxes, with the list of mailboxes being
empty.

   When it is desirable to treat several mailboxes as a single unit
   (i.e., in a distribution list), the group construct can be used.  The
   group construct allows the sender to indicate a named group of
   recipients. This is done by giving a display name for the group,
   followed by a colon, followed by a comma separated list of any number
   of mailboxes (including zero and one), and ending with a semicolon.
   Because the list of mailboxes can be empty, using the group construct
   is also a simple way to communicate to recipients that the message
   was sent to one or more named sets of recipients, without actually
   providing the individual mailbox address for each of those
   recipients.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510  2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:

> On Feb 10 2019, Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> wrote:
>
>>   To: undisclosed-recipients:;
>
> This is the RFC2822 group of mailboxes, with the list of mailboxes being
> empty.
>
>    When it is desirable to treat several mailboxes as a single unit
>    (i.e., in a distribution list), the group construct can be used.  The
>    group construct allows the sender to indicate a named group of
>    recipients. This is done by giving a display name for the group,
>    followed by a colon, followed by a comma separated list of any number
>    of mailboxes (including zero and one), and ending with a semicolon.
>    Because the list of mailboxes can be empty, using the group construct
>    is also a simple way to communicate to recipients that the message
>    was sent to one or more named sets of recipients, without actually
>    providing the individual mailbox address for each of those
>    recipients.

Thanks to both you and Adam for the good information! I'd never heard of
mailbox groups...

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1187 bytes --]

>>> "AS" == Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:

> On Feb 10 2019, Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> wrote:
>> To: undisclosed-recipients:;

> This is the RFC2822 group of mailboxes, with the list of mailboxes being
> empty.

>    When it is desirable to treat several mailboxes as a single unit
>    (i.e., in a distribution list), the group construct can be used.  The
>    group construct allows the sender to indicate a named group of
>    recipients. This is done by giving a display name for the group,
>    followed by a colon, followed by a comma separated list of any number
>    of mailboxes (including zero and one), and ending with a semicolon.
>    Because the list of mailboxes can be empty, using the group construct
>    is also a simple way to communicate to recipients that the message
>    was sent to one or more named sets of recipients, without actually
>    providing the individual mailbox address for each of those
>    recipients.

Thanks but any idea how gnus could be configured to show that behavior
of inserting undisclosed recipient into the To field?

Bcc: testname:user1,user2;

Did not put in undisclosed recipient.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5025 bytes --]

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Adam Sjøgren]

Uwe writes:

>>>> "AS" == Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:
>
>> On Feb 10 2019, Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> wrote:
>>> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
>
>> This is the RFC2822 group of mailboxes, with the list of mailboxes being
>> empty.

[...]

> Thanks but any idea how gnus could be configured to show that behavior
> of inserting undisclosed recipient into the To field?

Just type in the value; I just tried, and the resulting received email looked
like this:

  From:   Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk>
  Subject: Test of empty "undisclosed-recipients" mailgroup in To:, two emails in Bcc: from Gnus
  To: undisclosed-recipients:;
  Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 20:09:55 +0100 (6 seconds ago)

Gnus happily accepts sending that (I guess because it is valid, I didn't
know that it was until Andreas Schwab enlighted us; I will refrain from
calling it "bogus" from now on, and just call it unnecessary ;-))


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "They say, he has 10 lives."                                 Adam Sjøgren
                                                         asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 936 bytes --]

>>> "AS" == Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> writes:

> Uwe writes:
>>>>> "AS" == Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:
>> 
>>> On Feb 10 2019, Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> wrote:
>>> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
>> 
>>> This is the RFC2822 group of mailboxes, with the list of mailboxes being
>>> empty.

> [...]

>> Thanks but any idea how gnus could be configured to show that behavior
>> of inserting undisclosed recipient into the To field?

> Just type in the value; I just tried, and the resulting received email looked
> like this:


I must be really tired but I tried


From: Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es>
To: ;
Subject: test
Bcc: Uwe Brauer <blabla@blabla>, Uwe Brauer <blabla2@gmail.com> 

Gnus does not send it


From: Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es>
To: ,
Subject: test
Bcc: Uwe Brauer <blabla@blabla>, Uwe Brauer <blabla2@gmail.com> 

Gnus does not send it

What do I miss?

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5025 bytes --]

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Adam Sjøgren]

Uwe writes:

>>>> "AS" == Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> writes:

>> Just type in the value; I just tried, and the resulting received
>> email looked like this:
>
> I must be really tired but I tried
>
> From: Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es>
> To: ;

Uhm, why did you just put a semicolon? Didn't you want
"undisclosed-recipients:;" ??

> Subject: test
> Bcc: Uwe Brauer <blabla@blabla>, Uwe Brauer <blabla2@gmail.com> 
>
> Gnus does not send it

It worked when I tried, as I showed.

Maybe you have some configuration interfering?

You did put the exact text "undisclosed-recipients:;" in the To:-line,
right? (Without the quotes).


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "It's certainly possible to overthink such issues."          Adam Sjøgren
                                                         asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Andreas Schwab]

On Feb 11 2019, Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> wrote:

> It worked when I tried, as I showed.

It works for me when sent through my primary MTA, but not when sent
through an alternative MTA.  Either it depends on the MTA, or
sendmail/postfix handles it correctly, but smtpmail-send-it doesn't.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510  2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Adam Sjøgren]

Andreas writes:

> On Feb 11 2019, Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> wrote:
>
>> It worked when I tried, as I showed.
>
> It works for me when sent through my primary MTA, but not when sent
> through an alternative MTA.  Either it depends on the MTA, or
> sendmail/postfix handles it correctly, but smtpmail-send-it doesn't.

Ok, I use ... [looks it up]... 'message-send-mail-with-sendmail, and my
local MTA (providing /usr/sbin/sendmail) is Postfix 3.3.2, the receiving
MTA in my test is Postfix 3.1.8.


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "A cat has nine lives, but a bullfrog croaks                 Adam Sjøgren
  every day."                                            asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 663 bytes --]

>>> "AS" == Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> writes:

> Andreas writes:
>> On Feb 11 2019, Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> wrote:
>> 
>>> It worked when I tried, as I showed.
>> 
>> It works for me when sent through my primary MTA, but not when sent
>> through an alternative MTA.  Either it depends on the MTA, or
>> sendmail/postfix handles it correctly, but smtpmail-send-it doesn't.

> Ok, I use ... [looks it up]... 'message-send-mail-with-sendmail, and my
> local MTA (providing /usr/sbin/sendmail) is Postfix 3.3.2, the receiving
> MTA in my test is Postfix 3.1.8.

Ok that explains it, I use smtpmail

>   Best regards,

>     Adam

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5025 bytes --]

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1037 bytes --]

>>> "AS" == Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> writes:

> Andreas writes:
>> On Feb 11 2019, Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> wrote:
>> 
>>> It worked when I tried, as I showed.
>> 
>> It works for me when sent through my primary MTA, but not when sent
>> through an alternative MTA.  Either it depends on the MTA, or
>> sendmail/postfix handles it correctly, but smtpmail-send-it doesn't.

> Ok, I use ... [looks it up]... 'message-send-mail-with-sendmail, and my
> local MTA (providing /usr/sbin/sendmail) is Postfix 3.3.2, the receiving
> MTA in my test is Postfix 3.1.8.

Well I gave it a try 

I switched from 
(setq feedmail-buffer-eating-function 'feedmail-buffer-to-smtpmail
to 


(setq feedmail-buffer-eating-function 'feedmail-buffer-to-sendmail)

And did what you did but then I obtain 

sendmail: fatal: oub(1000): No recipient addresses found in message header
postdrop: warning: stdin: unexpected EOF in data, record type 78 length 76
postdrop: fatal: uid=1000: malformed input


Any ideas?

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5025 bytes --]

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Adam Sjøgren]

Uwe writes:

> I switched from 
> (setq feedmail-buffer-eating-function 'feedmail-buffer-to-smtpmail
> to 
>
>
> (setq feedmail-buffer-eating-function 'feedmail-buffer-to-sendmail)
>
> And did what you did but then I obtain 
>
> sendmail: fatal: oub(1000): No recipient addresses found in message header
> postdrop: warning: stdin: unexpected EOF in data, record type 78 length 76
> postdrop: fatal: uid=1000: malformed input
>
> Any ideas?

I don't see why your sendmail would complain about missing recipient
address in headers, _unless_ the recipient wasn't supplied to sendmail
as an argument (which would then make it necessary to extract the
recipient from the headers).

I.e. does feedmail call sendmail without recipients as arguments;
perhaps using -t:

       -t Extract recipients from message headers. These are added to
          any recipients specified on the command line.

? If so, I'd say that's a bug in feedmail's sendmail usage.

Did you try simply using 'message-send-mail-with-sendmail, bypassing this
feedmail thing completely?


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "Tato zprava byla vytvorena automaticky a proto na ni        Adam Sjøgren
  prosim neodpovidejte."                                 asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 501 bytes --]

>>> "AS" == Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:

> On Feb 11 2019, Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> wrote:
>> It worked when I tried, as I showed.

> It works for me when sent through my primary MTA, but not when sent
> through an alternative MTA.  Either it depends on the MTA, or
> sendmail/postfix handles it correctly, but smtpmail-send-it doesn't.

Ok, I use smtpmail-send-it and there it does not work.
Thanks for the clarification. 

I will ask the smtpmail maintainer

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5025 bytes --]

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 427 bytes --]

>>> "AS" == Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:

> On Feb 11 2019, Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> wrote:
>> It worked when I tried, as I showed.

> It works for me when sent through my primary MTA, but not when sent
> through an alternative MTA.  Either it depends on the MTA, or
> sendmail/postfix handles it correctly, but smtpmail-send-it doesn't.

Thunderbird/Seamonkey does not support it neither.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5025 bytes --]

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Adam Sjøgren]

Uwe writes:

> Thunderbird/Seamonkey does not support it neither.

Thunderbird puts "To: undisclosed-recipients: ;" (notice the space!) in
the email when I try sending an email with two Bcc values and no To.

The email in the Sent folder looks like this:

 · https://koldfront.dk/misc/tb-bcc-no-to.png

And here is the explanation, from the Thunderbird 60.5.0 source code, as
included in Debian:

  asjo@tullinup:/usr/src/thunderbird$ ag -B1 -A3 undisclosed-recipients thunderbird-60.5.0/comm/mailnews/compose/src/nsMsgCompUtils.cpp
  383-  // If we don't have disclosed recipient (only Bcc), address the message to
  384:  // undisclosed-recipients to prevent problem with some servers
  385-
  386-  // If we are saving the message as a draft, don't bother inserting the undisclosed recipients field. We'll take care of that when we
  387-  // really send the message.

The email received like this:

  From: Adam Sjøgren <irene@koldfront.dk>
  Subject: Test Bcc, no To in Thunderbird 60.5.0
  To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
  Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:33:31 +0100

  Testing two Bcc values, nothing in To:

So I guess you are using a different version of Thunderbird?


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "It's my chainsaw                                            Adam Sjøgren
  Division is mine"                                      asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Adam Sjøgren]

Adam writes:

>   383-  // If we don't have disclosed recipient (only Bcc), address the message to
>   384:  // undisclosed-recipients to prevent problem with some servers

Looking further at the code, there is actually a preferences setting
(mail.compose.add_undisclosed_recipients) to control whether Thunderbird
does this or not:

 · https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/annotate/tip/mailnews/compose/src/nsMsgCompUtils.cpp#l395


  Fun!

   Adam

-- 
  (Pithy optimistic saying goes here. Remember to edit        Adam Sjøgren
  this line!)                                            asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1064 bytes --]

>>> "AS" == Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> writes:

> Uwe writes:
>>>>> "AS" == Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> writes:

>>> Just type in the value; I just tried, and the resulting received
>>> email looked like this:
>> 
>> I must be really tired but I tried
>> 
>> From: Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es>
>> To: ;

> Uhm, why did you just put a semicolon? Didn't you want
> "undisclosed-recipients:;" ??

>> Subject: test
>> Bcc: Uwe Brauer <blabla@blabla>, Uwe Brauer <blabla2@gmail.com> 
>> 
>> Gnus does not send it

> It worked when I tried, as I showed.

> Maybe you have some configuration interfering?

> You did put the exact text "undisclosed-recipients:;" in the To:-line,
> right? (Without the quotes).

From: Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: 
Bcc: Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> 
Gcc: nnml+archive:sent-mail
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 23:16:55 +0100
Message-ID: <8736ounf6w.fsf@mat.ucm.es>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Then I obtain the following error 

[-- Attachment #1.2: undiscloses.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 621 bytes --]

Debugger entered--Lisp error: (error "FQM: Sending...failed")
  signal(error ("FQM: Sending...failed"))
  error("FQM: Sending...failed")
  #f(compiled-function () #<bytecode 0x1d4af41>)()
  feedmail-send-it-immediately()
  feedmail-send-it-immediately-wrapper()
  feedmail-message-action-send()
  feedmail-send-it()
  message-multi-smtp-send-mail()
  gnus-agent-send-mail()
  message-send-mail(nil)
  message-send-via-mail(nil)
  message-send(nil)
  message-send-and-exit(nil)
  funcall-interactively(message-send-and-exit nil)
  call-interactively(message-send-and-exit nil nil)
  command-execute(message-send-and-exit)

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5025 bytes --]

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Adam Sjøgren]

Uwe writes:

> From: Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es>
> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> Subject: 
> Bcc: Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> 
> Gcc: nnml+archive:sent-mail
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 23:16:55 +0100
> Message-ID: <8736ounf6w.fsf@mat.ucm.es>
> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)
>
> Then I obtain the following error 
>
> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (error "FQM: Sending...failed")
>   signal(error ("FQM: Sending...failed"))
>   error("FQM: Sending...failed")
>   #f(compiled-function () #<bytecode 0x1d4af41>)()
>   feedmail-send-it-immediately()

Ok, so feedmail fails.

Does it have some debugging you can turn of, to check why? Maybe the
SMTP-server disliked the email?

It's not the empty Subject, that would be too easy, right?

I though Gnus would complain about an empty Subject...


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "It's part of our policy not to be taken seriously"          Adam Sjøgren
                                                         asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Adam Sjøgren]

Uwe writes:

> Thanks but any idea how gnus could be configured to show that behavior
> of inserting undisclosed recipient into the To field?

By adding some code to a hook? I guess it should be quite easy to detect
no To: and a Bcc: present, and add a To: with the
"undisclosed-recipients:;" value in that case?

I think "there is no predefined functionality to do that" is the phrase?


  :-),

   Adam

-- 
 "Man spiller rock'n'roll fordi man vil redde verden,         Adam Sjøgren
  intet mindre. Og verden trænger så meget til at blive  asjo@koldfront.dk
  reddet. Det, altså, det sku' da være klart."

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1375 bytes --]

>>> "AS" == Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> writes:

> Uwe writes:
>>> I always thought it was added automatically by a MTA somewhere if you
>>> left the To: field blank. I don't think anyone types it in there manually.
>> 
>> Well not gnus.

> Like Eric Abrahamsen, I think that this bogus value
> "undisclosed-recipients" is inserted by Microsoft Exchange, Gmail or
> similar, when there is no To: field.

> To test this, I tried composing an email in the Gmail web-interface with
> two recipients in Bcc: and nowhere else. The resulting emails arrived
> with:

>   From: Adam Sjøgren <[redacted]@gmail.com>
>   Subject: Test Bcc only from Gmail
>   To: undisclosed-recipients:;
>   Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:06:20 +0100

>   From: Adam Sjøgren <[redacted]@gmail.com>
>   Subject: Test Bcc only from Gmail
>   To: undisclosed-recipients:;
>   Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:06:20 +0100

> So Gmail inserts the bogus value "undisclosed-recipients:;" in To: when
> you only put recipients in the Bcc field and leave To and Cc empty.

I use gnus and gmail smtp mail server run your experiment and received 

From: Uwe Brauer <blabla@gmail.com>
Subject: test undisclosed
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 20:01:07 +0100 (2 minutes, 3 seconds ago)
Reply-To: Uwe Brauer <blabla@gmail.com>



So no undisclosed-recipients:; is inserted.

Sort of odd?

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5025 bytes --]

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Adam Sjøgren]

Uwe writes:

> I use gnus and gmail smtp mail server run your experiment and received 
>
> From: Uwe Brauer <blabla@gmail.com>
> Subject: test undisclosed
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 20:01:07 +0100 (2 minutes, 3 seconds ago)
> Reply-To: Uwe Brauer <blabla@gmail.com>
>
> So no undisclosed-recipients:; is inserted.

I guess it is the Gmail web-interface that inserts it then.

> Sort of odd?

Why?

You didn't answer this question:

>> Why do you find it attractive to have this value in To:‽

?


  :-),

   Adam

-- 
 "if your city has enough people, we will visit.              Adam Sjøgren
  if your city is a piss drop in a lake we will          asjo@koldfront.dk
  not visit."

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 752 bytes --]

>>> "AS" == Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> writes:

> Uwe writes:
>> I use gnus and gmail smtp mail server run your experiment and received 
>> 
>> From: Uwe Brauer <blabla@gmail.com>
>> Subject: test undisclosed
>> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 20:01:07 +0100 (2 minutes, 3 seconds ago)
>> Reply-To: Uwe Brauer <blabla@gmail.com>
>> 
>> So no undisclosed-recipients:; is inserted.

> I guess it is the Gmail web-interface that inserts it then.

>> Sort of odd?

> Why?

> You didn't answer this question:

>>> Why do you find it attractive to have this value in To:‽

Sorry you mean to undisclosed recipients? well because it reveals some
information. People sometimes wounder if they receive an email and the
To field is empty

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5025 bytes --]

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Adam Sjøgren <asjo@koldfront.dk> writes:

> Uwe writes:
>
>>> I always thought it was added automatically by a MTA somewhere if you
>>> left the To: field blank. I don't think anyone types it in there manually.
>>
>> Well not gnus.
>
> Like Eric Abrahamsen, I think that this bogus value
> "undisclosed-recipients" is inserted by Microsoft Exchange, Gmail or
> similar, when there is no To: field.

Also, I just checked my postfix installation, and apparently it's
something postfix also used to add by default, but now doesn't unless
you tell it to:

http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#undisclosed_recipients_header

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Adam Sjøgren]

Eric writes:

> Also, I just checked my postfix installation, and apparently it's
> something postfix also used to add by default, but now doesn't unless
> you tell it to:
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#undisclosed_recipients_header

I didn't know that. Cool!


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "We are like moths in a blizzard."                           Adam Sjøgren
                                                         asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: undisclosed-recipients

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1271 bytes --]

>>> "GA" == Garreau, Alexandre <galex-713@galex-713.eu> writes:

> I’d say use Bcc, which possibly won’t be replicated among bcc’ed
> people, while putting “undisclosed-recipients” in the To: fields. It
> will be bogus but your mail client/server will typically notice it
> itself.

Right, gnus reject to send such messages.
I can either put in the To field

    1. undisclosed-recipients <myemail@gmail.com>

    2. Or as Eric suggested leave it blank, which is probably better. 
       But I cannot do:

    3. To undisclosed-recipients; that gets rejected by gnus.



> However putting “undisclosed recipients” in “To:” when there’s no
> mailing list address seems a common convention among spammers and some
> mail-listing software and features from mail clients (already received
> news from friends like this): do you know where do that come from?
> maybe to paliate the fact the “To” is mandatory according mail RFCs?
> Is there a RFC talking about “undisclosed recipients”?

> Because it is always that two words, sometimes with a dash, sometimes
> without, sometimes with semi-colon, sometimes not, etc.

> Any idea?

I would really like to know, I have the feeling it is some mailing list
software. 

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5025 bytes --]