Can I Retrieve Email Addresses from BCC?












25















How can I unmask the e-mail addresses in a Bcc field when I am just a recipient?



Need very simple, step-by-step instructions for someone who doesn't code. I have received a group e-mail and would really like to see the others who got it.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Jenny B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 224





    Not being able to do this is the exact point of Bcc.

    – chrylis
    Mar 25 at 6:22






  • 97





    I have a feeling there's a followup question coming on workplace.SE

    – Sombrero Chicken
    Mar 25 at 11:39






  • 7





    You would have to hack into the SMTP server that sent you the email and decipher the incoming logs to see the BCC. You, as an average person will most likely have a tough time achieving this...

    – MonkeyZeus
    Mar 25 at 15:26






  • 37





    @chrylis To be fair, there are so many cases where information that shouldn't be accessible is merely hidden, that I can understand how a person would think it might be possible.

    – David Z
    Mar 25 at 17:58






  • 19





    Nothing easier. Sue the sender then use a subpoena to compel disclosure of the original message.

    – Harper
    Mar 25 at 21:38
















25















How can I unmask the e-mail addresses in a Bcc field when I am just a recipient?



Need very simple, step-by-step instructions for someone who doesn't code. I have received a group e-mail and would really like to see the others who got it.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Jenny B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 224





    Not being able to do this is the exact point of Bcc.

    – chrylis
    Mar 25 at 6:22






  • 97





    I have a feeling there's a followup question coming on workplace.SE

    – Sombrero Chicken
    Mar 25 at 11:39






  • 7





    You would have to hack into the SMTP server that sent you the email and decipher the incoming logs to see the BCC. You, as an average person will most likely have a tough time achieving this...

    – MonkeyZeus
    Mar 25 at 15:26






  • 37





    @chrylis To be fair, there are so many cases where information that shouldn't be accessible is merely hidden, that I can understand how a person would think it might be possible.

    – David Z
    Mar 25 at 17:58






  • 19





    Nothing easier. Sue the sender then use a subpoena to compel disclosure of the original message.

    – Harper
    Mar 25 at 21:38














25












25








25


3






How can I unmask the e-mail addresses in a Bcc field when I am just a recipient?



Need very simple, step-by-step instructions for someone who doesn't code. I have received a group e-mail and would really like to see the others who got it.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Jenny B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












How can I unmask the e-mail addresses in a Bcc field when I am just a recipient?



Need very simple, step-by-step instructions for someone who doesn't code. I have received a group e-mail and would really like to see the others who got it.







email






share|improve this question









New contributor




Jenny B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Jenny B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 25 at 17:02









Fermi paradox

1257




1257






New contributor




Jenny B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Mar 25 at 0:06









Jenny BJenny B

156123




156123




New contributor




Jenny B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Jenny B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Jenny B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 224





    Not being able to do this is the exact point of Bcc.

    – chrylis
    Mar 25 at 6:22






  • 97





    I have a feeling there's a followup question coming on workplace.SE

    – Sombrero Chicken
    Mar 25 at 11:39






  • 7





    You would have to hack into the SMTP server that sent you the email and decipher the incoming logs to see the BCC. You, as an average person will most likely have a tough time achieving this...

    – MonkeyZeus
    Mar 25 at 15:26






  • 37





    @chrylis To be fair, there are so many cases where information that shouldn't be accessible is merely hidden, that I can understand how a person would think it might be possible.

    – David Z
    Mar 25 at 17:58






  • 19





    Nothing easier. Sue the sender then use a subpoena to compel disclosure of the original message.

    – Harper
    Mar 25 at 21:38














  • 224





    Not being able to do this is the exact point of Bcc.

    – chrylis
    Mar 25 at 6:22






  • 97





    I have a feeling there's a followup question coming on workplace.SE

    – Sombrero Chicken
    Mar 25 at 11:39






  • 7





    You would have to hack into the SMTP server that sent you the email and decipher the incoming logs to see the BCC. You, as an average person will most likely have a tough time achieving this...

    – MonkeyZeus
    Mar 25 at 15:26






  • 37





    @chrylis To be fair, there are so many cases where information that shouldn't be accessible is merely hidden, that I can understand how a person would think it might be possible.

    – David Z
    Mar 25 at 17:58






  • 19





    Nothing easier. Sue the sender then use a subpoena to compel disclosure of the original message.

    – Harper
    Mar 25 at 21:38








224




224





Not being able to do this is the exact point of Bcc.

– chrylis
Mar 25 at 6:22





Not being able to do this is the exact point of Bcc.

– chrylis
Mar 25 at 6:22




97




97





I have a feeling there's a followup question coming on workplace.SE

– Sombrero Chicken
Mar 25 at 11:39





I have a feeling there's a followup question coming on workplace.SE

– Sombrero Chicken
Mar 25 at 11:39




7




7





You would have to hack into the SMTP server that sent you the email and decipher the incoming logs to see the BCC. You, as an average person will most likely have a tough time achieving this...

– MonkeyZeus
Mar 25 at 15:26





You would have to hack into the SMTP server that sent you the email and decipher the incoming logs to see the BCC. You, as an average person will most likely have a tough time achieving this...

– MonkeyZeus
Mar 25 at 15:26




37




37





@chrylis To be fair, there are so many cases where information that shouldn't be accessible is merely hidden, that I can understand how a person would think it might be possible.

– David Z
Mar 25 at 17:58





@chrylis To be fair, there are so many cases where information that shouldn't be accessible is merely hidden, that I can understand how a person would think it might be possible.

– David Z
Mar 25 at 17:58




19




19





Nothing easier. Sue the sender then use a subpoena to compel disclosure of the original message.

– Harper
Mar 25 at 21:38





Nothing easier. Sue the sender then use a subpoena to compel disclosure of the original message.

– Harper
Mar 25 at 21:38










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















124














You can't. You simply won't have any information about the Bcc header when you receive the mail, so you there's nothing to "unmask".



The way Bcc is designed is specified in RFC 2822, under section 3.6.3. To quote the specification:




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. There are three ways in
which the "Bcc:" field is used. 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. 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.) 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, but refer to the "Security
Considerations" section of this document for a discussion of each.



When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:" field)
or mailboxes specified in the "Reply-To:" field (if it exists) MAY
appear in the "To:" field of the reply since these would normally be
the primary recipients of the reply. If a reply is sent to a message
that has destination fields, it is often desirable to send a copy of
the reply to all of the recipients of the message, in addition to the
author. When such a reply is formed, addresses in the "To:" and "Cc:"
fields of the original message MAY appear in the "Cc:" field of the
reply, since these are normally secondary recipients of the reply. If
a "Bcc:" field is present in the original message, addresses in that
field MAY appear in the "Bcc:" field of the reply, but SHOULD NOT
appear in the "To:" or "Cc:" fields.



Note: Some mail applications have automatic reply commands that
include the destination addresses of the original message in the
destination addresses of the reply. How those reply commands behave
is implementation dependent and is beyond the scope of this document.
In particular, whether or not to include the original destination
addresses when the original message had a "Reply-To:" field is not
addressed here.




In practice the case where To and Cc recipients receive no Bcc line, but each Bcc'ed address receives a Bcc line containing only their email address, is most common. This provides no indication of a Bcc to the To and Cc recipients, and indicates to the Bcc'ed recipients that they were sent the email via the use of Bcc without revealing other Bcc recipients.






share|improve this answer



















  • 9





    each Bcc'ed address receives a Bcc line containing only their email address, is most common. Is it? That would require sending the message multiple times instead of a single message with multiple RCPT TO: commands. What MUA would do that?

    – Esa Jokinen
    Mar 25 at 3:57













  • @EsaJokinen What other choice does the MUA have when the recipients are on different domains? BCC simply forces that behaviour.

    – Selcuk
    Mar 25 at 5:12






  • 9





    The MUA sends it only once to the MTA, and the MTA starts delivering it separately to all the different domains. The thing is that MTAs won't usually bother to add RCPT TO as Bcc:. It's more likely in a Received: header as for <user@example.com>.

    – Esa Jokinen
    Mar 25 at 5:41








  • 4





    That's true: you know that you were Bcc'd (or otherwise undisclosed) from not being on the To & Cc headers. MUA just saves the Bcc when saving the mail to the senders Sent-folder, but it's not part of the message sent via SMTP.

    – Esa Jokinen
    Mar 25 at 11:39








  • 1





    @EsaJokinen Gmail does this - it actually includes the Bcc header in the message. I don't know offhand of any others that do it.

    – Moshe Katz
    2 days ago





















32














Typically not possible if you don't have control over the sender SMTP server since this field is not transmitted to the recipient SMTP server.



When sending a mail, the sender SMTP server checks the BCC field and creates a copy for each recipient listed, removing the list of other recipients.
That is the whole point of BCC functionality.






share|improve this answer































    4














    Request For Comments (RFC) standard (published by The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) specifies that recipients of an email, sent to recipients specified in "BCC" header may receive the email but not be aware of any other recipients mentioned in the header. Specifically, "addresses are not to be revealed to other recipients of the message".



    It's a request to SMTP servers to reflect current practice (protocol) for the Internet community by The Internet Society.



    Those found to be not compliant may be segregated and if found to be rogue, will be banned/blacklisted, and even prosecuted when found to conduct activities in contravention of laws in the jurisdiction.



    So if you're a recipient of an email from a compliant (mail) server, you won't receive other recipients emails mentioned in the "BCC" field, unless you're in control of the sending (SMTP) server, the incoming (POP,IMAP, etc) server, and all the relay servers that routed the IP packets.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Zimba is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.
















    • 3





      "Those found to be not compliant may be segregated and if found to be rogue, will be banned/blacklisted, and even prosecuted when found to conduct activities in contravention of laws in the jurisdiction." - I would suggest this is an extremely unlikely outcome for a server that leaked BCC addresses. Moreover, if a message is BCC'd to x@foo.com and y@bar.com, and foo.com and y.com have different SMTP servers, bar.com will not even receive the x@foo.com's address to leak, so there would be no point in "segregating" it as its leaks only affect its own users.

      – abligh
      Mar 26 at 6:16








    • 2





      Are there laws requiring IETF RFC compliance for email systems now?

      – grawity
      Mar 26 at 6:35






    • 1





      @grawity: You'd be looking for laws that proscribe applying best practices, generally accepted methods and similar generic statements. Cf. GDPR 5.1(f) "appropriate technical or organisational measures"

      – MSalters
      Mar 26 at 9:37








    • 2





      @MSalters presumably meant prescribe rather than its opposite, proscribe...

      – Toby Speight
      Mar 26 at 16:38











    • @grawity not directly but a server which disclosed information despite standards say otherwise would cause its operator to violate various privacy laws (like GDPR or CCPA)

      – eckes
      yesterday












    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "162"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Jenny B is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f206003%2fcan-i-retrieve-email-addresses-from-bcc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    124














    You can't. You simply won't have any information about the Bcc header when you receive the mail, so you there's nothing to "unmask".



    The way Bcc is designed is specified in RFC 2822, under section 3.6.3. To quote the specification:




    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. There are three ways in
    which the "Bcc:" field is used. 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. 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.) 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, but refer to the "Security
    Considerations" section of this document for a discussion of each.



    When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
    authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:" field)
    or mailboxes specified in the "Reply-To:" field (if it exists) MAY
    appear in the "To:" field of the reply since these would normally be
    the primary recipients of the reply. If a reply is sent to a message
    that has destination fields, it is often desirable to send a copy of
    the reply to all of the recipients of the message, in addition to the
    author. When such a reply is formed, addresses in the "To:" and "Cc:"
    fields of the original message MAY appear in the "Cc:" field of the
    reply, since these are normally secondary recipients of the reply. If
    a "Bcc:" field is present in the original message, addresses in that
    field MAY appear in the "Bcc:" field of the reply, but SHOULD NOT
    appear in the "To:" or "Cc:" fields.



    Note: Some mail applications have automatic reply commands that
    include the destination addresses of the original message in the
    destination addresses of the reply. How those reply commands behave
    is implementation dependent and is beyond the scope of this document.
    In particular, whether or not to include the original destination
    addresses when the original message had a "Reply-To:" field is not
    addressed here.




    In practice the case where To and Cc recipients receive no Bcc line, but each Bcc'ed address receives a Bcc line containing only their email address, is most common. This provides no indication of a Bcc to the To and Cc recipients, and indicates to the Bcc'ed recipients that they were sent the email via the use of Bcc without revealing other Bcc recipients.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 9





      each Bcc'ed address receives a Bcc line containing only their email address, is most common. Is it? That would require sending the message multiple times instead of a single message with multiple RCPT TO: commands. What MUA would do that?

      – Esa Jokinen
      Mar 25 at 3:57













    • @EsaJokinen What other choice does the MUA have when the recipients are on different domains? BCC simply forces that behaviour.

      – Selcuk
      Mar 25 at 5:12






    • 9





      The MUA sends it only once to the MTA, and the MTA starts delivering it separately to all the different domains. The thing is that MTAs won't usually bother to add RCPT TO as Bcc:. It's more likely in a Received: header as for <user@example.com>.

      – Esa Jokinen
      Mar 25 at 5:41








    • 4





      That's true: you know that you were Bcc'd (or otherwise undisclosed) from not being on the To & Cc headers. MUA just saves the Bcc when saving the mail to the senders Sent-folder, but it's not part of the message sent via SMTP.

      – Esa Jokinen
      Mar 25 at 11:39








    • 1





      @EsaJokinen Gmail does this - it actually includes the Bcc header in the message. I don't know offhand of any others that do it.

      – Moshe Katz
      2 days ago


















    124














    You can't. You simply won't have any information about the Bcc header when you receive the mail, so you there's nothing to "unmask".



    The way Bcc is designed is specified in RFC 2822, under section 3.6.3. To quote the specification:




    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. There are three ways in
    which the "Bcc:" field is used. 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. 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.) 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, but refer to the "Security
    Considerations" section of this document for a discussion of each.



    When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
    authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:" field)
    or mailboxes specified in the "Reply-To:" field (if it exists) MAY
    appear in the "To:" field of the reply since these would normally be
    the primary recipients of the reply. If a reply is sent to a message
    that has destination fields, it is often desirable to send a copy of
    the reply to all of the recipients of the message, in addition to the
    author. When such a reply is formed, addresses in the "To:" and "Cc:"
    fields of the original message MAY appear in the "Cc:" field of the
    reply, since these are normally secondary recipients of the reply. If
    a "Bcc:" field is present in the original message, addresses in that
    field MAY appear in the "Bcc:" field of the reply, but SHOULD NOT
    appear in the "To:" or "Cc:" fields.



    Note: Some mail applications have automatic reply commands that
    include the destination addresses of the original message in the
    destination addresses of the reply. How those reply commands behave
    is implementation dependent and is beyond the scope of this document.
    In particular, whether or not to include the original destination
    addresses when the original message had a "Reply-To:" field is not
    addressed here.




    In practice the case where To and Cc recipients receive no Bcc line, but each Bcc'ed address receives a Bcc line containing only their email address, is most common. This provides no indication of a Bcc to the To and Cc recipients, and indicates to the Bcc'ed recipients that they were sent the email via the use of Bcc without revealing other Bcc recipients.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 9





      each Bcc'ed address receives a Bcc line containing only their email address, is most common. Is it? That would require sending the message multiple times instead of a single message with multiple RCPT TO: commands. What MUA would do that?

      – Esa Jokinen
      Mar 25 at 3:57













    • @EsaJokinen What other choice does the MUA have when the recipients are on different domains? BCC simply forces that behaviour.

      – Selcuk
      Mar 25 at 5:12






    • 9





      The MUA sends it only once to the MTA, and the MTA starts delivering it separately to all the different domains. The thing is that MTAs won't usually bother to add RCPT TO as Bcc:. It's more likely in a Received: header as for <user@example.com>.

      – Esa Jokinen
      Mar 25 at 5:41








    • 4





      That's true: you know that you were Bcc'd (or otherwise undisclosed) from not being on the To & Cc headers. MUA just saves the Bcc when saving the mail to the senders Sent-folder, but it's not part of the message sent via SMTP.

      – Esa Jokinen
      Mar 25 at 11:39








    • 1





      @EsaJokinen Gmail does this - it actually includes the Bcc header in the message. I don't know offhand of any others that do it.

      – Moshe Katz
      2 days ago
















    124












    124








    124







    You can't. You simply won't have any information about the Bcc header when you receive the mail, so you there's nothing to "unmask".



    The way Bcc is designed is specified in RFC 2822, under section 3.6.3. To quote the specification:




    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. There are three ways in
    which the "Bcc:" field is used. 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. 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.) 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, but refer to the "Security
    Considerations" section of this document for a discussion of each.



    When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
    authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:" field)
    or mailboxes specified in the "Reply-To:" field (if it exists) MAY
    appear in the "To:" field of the reply since these would normally be
    the primary recipients of the reply. If a reply is sent to a message
    that has destination fields, it is often desirable to send a copy of
    the reply to all of the recipients of the message, in addition to the
    author. When such a reply is formed, addresses in the "To:" and "Cc:"
    fields of the original message MAY appear in the "Cc:" field of the
    reply, since these are normally secondary recipients of the reply. If
    a "Bcc:" field is present in the original message, addresses in that
    field MAY appear in the "Bcc:" field of the reply, but SHOULD NOT
    appear in the "To:" or "Cc:" fields.



    Note: Some mail applications have automatic reply commands that
    include the destination addresses of the original message in the
    destination addresses of the reply. How those reply commands behave
    is implementation dependent and is beyond the scope of this document.
    In particular, whether or not to include the original destination
    addresses when the original message had a "Reply-To:" field is not
    addressed here.




    In practice the case where To and Cc recipients receive no Bcc line, but each Bcc'ed address receives a Bcc line containing only their email address, is most common. This provides no indication of a Bcc to the To and Cc recipients, and indicates to the Bcc'ed recipients that they were sent the email via the use of Bcc without revealing other Bcc recipients.






    share|improve this answer













    You can't. You simply won't have any information about the Bcc header when you receive the mail, so you there's nothing to "unmask".



    The way Bcc is designed is specified in RFC 2822, under section 3.6.3. To quote the specification:




    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. There are three ways in
    which the "Bcc:" field is used. 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. 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.) 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, but refer to the "Security
    Considerations" section of this document for a discussion of each.



    When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
    authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:" field)
    or mailboxes specified in the "Reply-To:" field (if it exists) MAY
    appear in the "To:" field of the reply since these would normally be
    the primary recipients of the reply. If a reply is sent to a message
    that has destination fields, it is often desirable to send a copy of
    the reply to all of the recipients of the message, in addition to the
    author. When such a reply is formed, addresses in the "To:" and "Cc:"
    fields of the original message MAY appear in the "Cc:" field of the
    reply, since these are normally secondary recipients of the reply. If
    a "Bcc:" field is present in the original message, addresses in that
    field MAY appear in the "Bcc:" field of the reply, but SHOULD NOT
    appear in the "To:" or "Cc:" fields.



    Note: Some mail applications have automatic reply commands that
    include the destination addresses of the original message in the
    destination addresses of the reply. How those reply commands behave
    is implementation dependent and is beyond the scope of this document.
    In particular, whether or not to include the original destination
    addresses when the original message had a "Reply-To:" field is not
    addressed here.




    In practice the case where To and Cc recipients receive no Bcc line, but each Bcc'ed address receives a Bcc line containing only their email address, is most common. This provides no indication of a Bcc to the To and Cc recipients, and indicates to the Bcc'ed recipients that they were sent the email via the use of Bcc without revealing other Bcc recipients.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Mar 25 at 0:20









    PolynomialPolynomial

    101k34249342




    101k34249342








    • 9





      each Bcc'ed address receives a Bcc line containing only their email address, is most common. Is it? That would require sending the message multiple times instead of a single message with multiple RCPT TO: commands. What MUA would do that?

      – Esa Jokinen
      Mar 25 at 3:57













    • @EsaJokinen What other choice does the MUA have when the recipients are on different domains? BCC simply forces that behaviour.

      – Selcuk
      Mar 25 at 5:12






    • 9





      The MUA sends it only once to the MTA, and the MTA starts delivering it separately to all the different domains. The thing is that MTAs won't usually bother to add RCPT TO as Bcc:. It's more likely in a Received: header as for <user@example.com>.

      – Esa Jokinen
      Mar 25 at 5:41








    • 4





      That's true: you know that you were Bcc'd (or otherwise undisclosed) from not being on the To & Cc headers. MUA just saves the Bcc when saving the mail to the senders Sent-folder, but it's not part of the message sent via SMTP.

      – Esa Jokinen
      Mar 25 at 11:39








    • 1





      @EsaJokinen Gmail does this - it actually includes the Bcc header in the message. I don't know offhand of any others that do it.

      – Moshe Katz
      2 days ago
















    • 9





      each Bcc'ed address receives a Bcc line containing only their email address, is most common. Is it? That would require sending the message multiple times instead of a single message with multiple RCPT TO: commands. What MUA would do that?

      – Esa Jokinen
      Mar 25 at 3:57













    • @EsaJokinen What other choice does the MUA have when the recipients are on different domains? BCC simply forces that behaviour.

      – Selcuk
      Mar 25 at 5:12






    • 9





      The MUA sends it only once to the MTA, and the MTA starts delivering it separately to all the different domains. The thing is that MTAs won't usually bother to add RCPT TO as Bcc:. It's more likely in a Received: header as for <user@example.com>.

      – Esa Jokinen
      Mar 25 at 5:41








    • 4





      That's true: you know that you were Bcc'd (or otherwise undisclosed) from not being on the To & Cc headers. MUA just saves the Bcc when saving the mail to the senders Sent-folder, but it's not part of the message sent via SMTP.

      – Esa Jokinen
      Mar 25 at 11:39








    • 1





      @EsaJokinen Gmail does this - it actually includes the Bcc header in the message. I don't know offhand of any others that do it.

      – Moshe Katz
      2 days ago










    9




    9





    each Bcc'ed address receives a Bcc line containing only their email address, is most common. Is it? That would require sending the message multiple times instead of a single message with multiple RCPT TO: commands. What MUA would do that?

    – Esa Jokinen
    Mar 25 at 3:57







    each Bcc'ed address receives a Bcc line containing only their email address, is most common. Is it? That would require sending the message multiple times instead of a single message with multiple RCPT TO: commands. What MUA would do that?

    – Esa Jokinen
    Mar 25 at 3:57















    @EsaJokinen What other choice does the MUA have when the recipients are on different domains? BCC simply forces that behaviour.

    – Selcuk
    Mar 25 at 5:12





    @EsaJokinen What other choice does the MUA have when the recipients are on different domains? BCC simply forces that behaviour.

    – Selcuk
    Mar 25 at 5:12




    9




    9





    The MUA sends it only once to the MTA, and the MTA starts delivering it separately to all the different domains. The thing is that MTAs won't usually bother to add RCPT TO as Bcc:. It's more likely in a Received: header as for <user@example.com>.

    – Esa Jokinen
    Mar 25 at 5:41







    The MUA sends it only once to the MTA, and the MTA starts delivering it separately to all the different domains. The thing is that MTAs won't usually bother to add RCPT TO as Bcc:. It's more likely in a Received: header as for <user@example.com>.

    – Esa Jokinen
    Mar 25 at 5:41






    4




    4





    That's true: you know that you were Bcc'd (or otherwise undisclosed) from not being on the To & Cc headers. MUA just saves the Bcc when saving the mail to the senders Sent-folder, but it's not part of the message sent via SMTP.

    – Esa Jokinen
    Mar 25 at 11:39







    That's true: you know that you were Bcc'd (or otherwise undisclosed) from not being on the To & Cc headers. MUA just saves the Bcc when saving the mail to the senders Sent-folder, but it's not part of the message sent via SMTP.

    – Esa Jokinen
    Mar 25 at 11:39






    1




    1





    @EsaJokinen Gmail does this - it actually includes the Bcc header in the message. I don't know offhand of any others that do it.

    – Moshe Katz
    2 days ago







    @EsaJokinen Gmail does this - it actually includes the Bcc header in the message. I don't know offhand of any others that do it.

    – Moshe Katz
    2 days ago















    32














    Typically not possible if you don't have control over the sender SMTP server since this field is not transmitted to the recipient SMTP server.



    When sending a mail, the sender SMTP server checks the BCC field and creates a copy for each recipient listed, removing the list of other recipients.
    That is the whole point of BCC functionality.






    share|improve this answer




























      32














      Typically not possible if you don't have control over the sender SMTP server since this field is not transmitted to the recipient SMTP server.



      When sending a mail, the sender SMTP server checks the BCC field and creates a copy for each recipient listed, removing the list of other recipients.
      That is the whole point of BCC functionality.






      share|improve this answer


























        32












        32








        32







        Typically not possible if you don't have control over the sender SMTP server since this field is not transmitted to the recipient SMTP server.



        When sending a mail, the sender SMTP server checks the BCC field and creates a copy for each recipient listed, removing the list of other recipients.
        That is the whole point of BCC functionality.






        share|improve this answer













        Typically not possible if you don't have control over the sender SMTP server since this field is not transmitted to the recipient SMTP server.



        When sending a mail, the sender SMTP server checks the BCC field and creates a copy for each recipient listed, removing the list of other recipients.
        That is the whole point of BCC functionality.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Mar 25 at 0:09









        NaoyNaoy

        43133




        43133























            4














            Request For Comments (RFC) standard (published by The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) specifies that recipients of an email, sent to recipients specified in "BCC" header may receive the email but not be aware of any other recipients mentioned in the header. Specifically, "addresses are not to be revealed to other recipients of the message".



            It's a request to SMTP servers to reflect current practice (protocol) for the Internet community by The Internet Society.



            Those found to be not compliant may be segregated and if found to be rogue, will be banned/blacklisted, and even prosecuted when found to conduct activities in contravention of laws in the jurisdiction.



            So if you're a recipient of an email from a compliant (mail) server, you won't receive other recipients emails mentioned in the "BCC" field, unless you're in control of the sending (SMTP) server, the incoming (POP,IMAP, etc) server, and all the relay servers that routed the IP packets.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Zimba is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.
















            • 3





              "Those found to be not compliant may be segregated and if found to be rogue, will be banned/blacklisted, and even prosecuted when found to conduct activities in contravention of laws in the jurisdiction." - I would suggest this is an extremely unlikely outcome for a server that leaked BCC addresses. Moreover, if a message is BCC'd to x@foo.com and y@bar.com, and foo.com and y.com have different SMTP servers, bar.com will not even receive the x@foo.com's address to leak, so there would be no point in "segregating" it as its leaks only affect its own users.

              – abligh
              Mar 26 at 6:16








            • 2





              Are there laws requiring IETF RFC compliance for email systems now?

              – grawity
              Mar 26 at 6:35






            • 1





              @grawity: You'd be looking for laws that proscribe applying best practices, generally accepted methods and similar generic statements. Cf. GDPR 5.1(f) "appropriate technical or organisational measures"

              – MSalters
              Mar 26 at 9:37








            • 2





              @MSalters presumably meant prescribe rather than its opposite, proscribe...

              – Toby Speight
              Mar 26 at 16:38











            • @grawity not directly but a server which disclosed information despite standards say otherwise would cause its operator to violate various privacy laws (like GDPR or CCPA)

              – eckes
              yesterday
















            4














            Request For Comments (RFC) standard (published by The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) specifies that recipients of an email, sent to recipients specified in "BCC" header may receive the email but not be aware of any other recipients mentioned in the header. Specifically, "addresses are not to be revealed to other recipients of the message".



            It's a request to SMTP servers to reflect current practice (protocol) for the Internet community by The Internet Society.



            Those found to be not compliant may be segregated and if found to be rogue, will be banned/blacklisted, and even prosecuted when found to conduct activities in contravention of laws in the jurisdiction.



            So if you're a recipient of an email from a compliant (mail) server, you won't receive other recipients emails mentioned in the "BCC" field, unless you're in control of the sending (SMTP) server, the incoming (POP,IMAP, etc) server, and all the relay servers that routed the IP packets.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Zimba is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.
















            • 3





              "Those found to be not compliant may be segregated and if found to be rogue, will be banned/blacklisted, and even prosecuted when found to conduct activities in contravention of laws in the jurisdiction." - I would suggest this is an extremely unlikely outcome for a server that leaked BCC addresses. Moreover, if a message is BCC'd to x@foo.com and y@bar.com, and foo.com and y.com have different SMTP servers, bar.com will not even receive the x@foo.com's address to leak, so there would be no point in "segregating" it as its leaks only affect its own users.

              – abligh
              Mar 26 at 6:16








            • 2





              Are there laws requiring IETF RFC compliance for email systems now?

              – grawity
              Mar 26 at 6:35






            • 1





              @grawity: You'd be looking for laws that proscribe applying best practices, generally accepted methods and similar generic statements. Cf. GDPR 5.1(f) "appropriate technical or organisational measures"

              – MSalters
              Mar 26 at 9:37








            • 2





              @MSalters presumably meant prescribe rather than its opposite, proscribe...

              – Toby Speight
              Mar 26 at 16:38











            • @grawity not directly but a server which disclosed information despite standards say otherwise would cause its operator to violate various privacy laws (like GDPR or CCPA)

              – eckes
              yesterday














            4












            4








            4







            Request For Comments (RFC) standard (published by The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) specifies that recipients of an email, sent to recipients specified in "BCC" header may receive the email but not be aware of any other recipients mentioned in the header. Specifically, "addresses are not to be revealed to other recipients of the message".



            It's a request to SMTP servers to reflect current practice (protocol) for the Internet community by The Internet Society.



            Those found to be not compliant may be segregated and if found to be rogue, will be banned/blacklisted, and even prosecuted when found to conduct activities in contravention of laws in the jurisdiction.



            So if you're a recipient of an email from a compliant (mail) server, you won't receive other recipients emails mentioned in the "BCC" field, unless you're in control of the sending (SMTP) server, the incoming (POP,IMAP, etc) server, and all the relay servers that routed the IP packets.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Zimba is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.










            Request For Comments (RFC) standard (published by The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)) specifies that recipients of an email, sent to recipients specified in "BCC" header may receive the email but not be aware of any other recipients mentioned in the header. Specifically, "addresses are not to be revealed to other recipients of the message".



            It's a request to SMTP servers to reflect current practice (protocol) for the Internet community by The Internet Society.



            Those found to be not compliant may be segregated and if found to be rogue, will be banned/blacklisted, and even prosecuted when found to conduct activities in contravention of laws in the jurisdiction.



            So if you're a recipient of an email from a compliant (mail) server, you won't receive other recipients emails mentioned in the "BCC" field, unless you're in control of the sending (SMTP) server, the incoming (POP,IMAP, etc) server, and all the relay servers that routed the IP packets.







            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Zimba is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer






            New contributor




            Zimba is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            answered Mar 25 at 11:37









            ZimbaZimba

            671




            671




            New contributor




            Zimba is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





            New contributor





            Zimba is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            Zimba is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.








            • 3





              "Those found to be not compliant may be segregated and if found to be rogue, will be banned/blacklisted, and even prosecuted when found to conduct activities in contravention of laws in the jurisdiction." - I would suggest this is an extremely unlikely outcome for a server that leaked BCC addresses. Moreover, if a message is BCC'd to x@foo.com and y@bar.com, and foo.com and y.com have different SMTP servers, bar.com will not even receive the x@foo.com's address to leak, so there would be no point in "segregating" it as its leaks only affect its own users.

              – abligh
              Mar 26 at 6:16








            • 2





              Are there laws requiring IETF RFC compliance for email systems now?

              – grawity
              Mar 26 at 6:35






            • 1





              @grawity: You'd be looking for laws that proscribe applying best practices, generally accepted methods and similar generic statements. Cf. GDPR 5.1(f) "appropriate technical or organisational measures"

              – MSalters
              Mar 26 at 9:37








            • 2





              @MSalters presumably meant prescribe rather than its opposite, proscribe...

              – Toby Speight
              Mar 26 at 16:38











            • @grawity not directly but a server which disclosed information despite standards say otherwise would cause its operator to violate various privacy laws (like GDPR or CCPA)

              – eckes
              yesterday














            • 3





              "Those found to be not compliant may be segregated and if found to be rogue, will be banned/blacklisted, and even prosecuted when found to conduct activities in contravention of laws in the jurisdiction." - I would suggest this is an extremely unlikely outcome for a server that leaked BCC addresses. Moreover, if a message is BCC'd to x@foo.com and y@bar.com, and foo.com and y.com have different SMTP servers, bar.com will not even receive the x@foo.com's address to leak, so there would be no point in "segregating" it as its leaks only affect its own users.

              – abligh
              Mar 26 at 6:16








            • 2





              Are there laws requiring IETF RFC compliance for email systems now?

              – grawity
              Mar 26 at 6:35






            • 1





              @grawity: You'd be looking for laws that proscribe applying best practices, generally accepted methods and similar generic statements. Cf. GDPR 5.1(f) "appropriate technical or organisational measures"

              – MSalters
              Mar 26 at 9:37








            • 2





              @MSalters presumably meant prescribe rather than its opposite, proscribe...

              – Toby Speight
              Mar 26 at 16:38











            • @grawity not directly but a server which disclosed information despite standards say otherwise would cause its operator to violate various privacy laws (like GDPR or CCPA)

              – eckes
              yesterday








            3




            3





            "Those found to be not compliant may be segregated and if found to be rogue, will be banned/blacklisted, and even prosecuted when found to conduct activities in contravention of laws in the jurisdiction." - I would suggest this is an extremely unlikely outcome for a server that leaked BCC addresses. Moreover, if a message is BCC'd to x@foo.com and y@bar.com, and foo.com and y.com have different SMTP servers, bar.com will not even receive the x@foo.com's address to leak, so there would be no point in "segregating" it as its leaks only affect its own users.

            – abligh
            Mar 26 at 6:16







            "Those found to be not compliant may be segregated and if found to be rogue, will be banned/blacklisted, and even prosecuted when found to conduct activities in contravention of laws in the jurisdiction." - I would suggest this is an extremely unlikely outcome for a server that leaked BCC addresses. Moreover, if a message is BCC'd to x@foo.com and y@bar.com, and foo.com and y.com have different SMTP servers, bar.com will not even receive the x@foo.com's address to leak, so there would be no point in "segregating" it as its leaks only affect its own users.

            – abligh
            Mar 26 at 6:16






            2




            2





            Are there laws requiring IETF RFC compliance for email systems now?

            – grawity
            Mar 26 at 6:35





            Are there laws requiring IETF RFC compliance for email systems now?

            – grawity
            Mar 26 at 6:35




            1




            1





            @grawity: You'd be looking for laws that proscribe applying best practices, generally accepted methods and similar generic statements. Cf. GDPR 5.1(f) "appropriate technical or organisational measures"

            – MSalters
            Mar 26 at 9:37







            @grawity: You'd be looking for laws that proscribe applying best practices, generally accepted methods and similar generic statements. Cf. GDPR 5.1(f) "appropriate technical or organisational measures"

            – MSalters
            Mar 26 at 9:37






            2




            2





            @MSalters presumably meant prescribe rather than its opposite, proscribe...

            – Toby Speight
            Mar 26 at 16:38





            @MSalters presumably meant prescribe rather than its opposite, proscribe...

            – Toby Speight
            Mar 26 at 16:38













            @grawity not directly but a server which disclosed information despite standards say otherwise would cause its operator to violate various privacy laws (like GDPR or CCPA)

            – eckes
            yesterday





            @grawity not directly but a server which disclosed information despite standards say otherwise would cause its operator to violate various privacy laws (like GDPR or CCPA)

            – eckes
            yesterday










            Jenny B is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Jenny B is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Jenny B is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Jenny B is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Information Security Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsecurity.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f206003%2fcan-i-retrieve-email-addresses-from-bcc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            Puebla de Zaragoza

            Musa