User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020722 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020722 It would be nice if you could set up a mailing list so that entries are set to CC or BCC when the list is used. For example, I have a SPAM list (for forwarding spam to the appropriate places.) Since many anti-spam sites get confused when there are multiple addressees, I BCC each site. Thus, I'd like to have an address list that read: bcc:uce@ftc.gov bcc:spamcop@spamcop.net and so on Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Set up a mailing list in address book 2. See absence of way to set BCC or CC field 3. Actual Results: No way to set CC or BCC Expected Results: Allow a field to set BCC or CC mode

please help kill keyword "RFE," it's redundant.

*** Bug 199428 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 248174 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 227593 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Perhaps bugs concerning handling Bcc, Cc etc straight in and from Address Book should belong in one single bug "Bcc handling in Address Book", which would include lists. Here are two more such bugs: <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389559> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=378531> A setting for an address to default to Bcc as soon as there are several addresses included in sending a message might be a nice thing. Presumably, it might be turned into part of electronic address preferences as in vCard etc. standards (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VCard>).

Thank you, David and Gudmund - and the many who previously urged a default BCC status for sensitive e-mail address lists as in Outlook (gasp!) and Evolution. I fully support these comments. Moreover, please make BCC the INITIAL default setting upon installation of Mozilla mail routines (including my favorite, SeaMonkey), so this accident won't happen before users learn how to avoid it. I love and applaud what volunteer programmers DO do, and I understand shortfalls. That said, I find it difficult to understand how such a potentially expensive error has avoided correction for so many years. (And not just potentially; this weak link in a strong product HAS cost us, embarrassed us, and makes users flinch every time we must consciously evade that accident waiting to happen!) My comment on a prior thread seems appropriate to ask again, as follows: Dick Miller 2004-06-22 09:56:38 PST (Bug 248174, since marked as duplicate) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 I've done it again! I accidentally sent a private e-mail list to all as To:, because I got tired and Mozilla (1.7 release version, and all preceding) defaulted it to To: instead of BCC:. Moz still lacks any default BCC setting for sensitive lists. This pothole should be patched, as it is a very expensive mistake in many circumstances. Evolution does this right. Is its open-source code sufficiently compatible to help? Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Be sleepy. 2. Send a sensitive e-mail list in Mozilla's default To: mode. 3. Read it and weep. 4. Wish that Moz could default such lists to BCC:! See Evolution, Outlook, etc. for good examples of easy reassignment of the default from To: for each e-mail list (perhaps cards, as well). This is a fatal shortfall for many serious users. Hopefully, it is not hard to fix.

So when is this error going to be fixed? How many more years?

(In reply to comment #10) > So when is this error going to be fixed? How many more years? This is not an error this is an enhancement request. It is not currently in the focus of the next Thunderbird release. However anyone is welcome to step up and try and fix it.

Should be great for TB 3.1 :-D

nice to have, but we wouldn't block 3.1 on this.

"This is not an error this is an enhancement request. It is not currently in the focus of the next Thunderbird release". Surely it is a DESIGN error? That it is categorised as an enhancement should not prevent it getting a high priority?