I am using and have been using "Postbox", a desktop email client, to send and receive all my emails through my Live account on "Outlook.com" using IMAP. Everything has worked perfectly between "Postbox" and "Outlook.com" for several years and I haven't changed anything on my end. About two weeks ago, I started having problems. Now, when I put a single name or a group list into the Bcc field on my "Postbox" desktop email client and send that email through my outgoing SMTP server at "Outlook.com", the email goes through "Outlook.com" and "Outlook.com" moves all the names from the Bcc field to the TO field. I am assuming this has something to do with the new changes associated with the updated "Outlook.com/Outlook Mail" web mail process. Notes: When I do the same thing using "Gmail" for my outgoing SMTP server, my names stay in the Bcc field as they should. My Outlook.com web page now shows Outlook Mail in the top left corner. I am using imap-mail.outlook.com Port 993 and smtp-mail.outlook.com Port 587 for my servers. I tried switching to imap-mail.live.com and smtp-mail.live.com as one MS web site suggested regarding the new changes to Outlook Mail but those new setting would not connect. I tried using Mozilla Thunderbird instead of Postbox as my desktop email client and the same problem occurred in that the name in my outgoing Bcc field was put into the To field after the email was processed through Outlook.com. Based on all of the above, I believe the problem has something to do with the way the new Outlook Mail is trying to process names from the Bcc field in emails sent from my desktop email clients. I hope someone from MS can look into this problem and get back to us.

Hi John, We are unable to duplicate this issue and does not seem closely related to the issue we fixed. Can I please ask you to start a new post on this issue giving a more detailed explanation including the client you are using etc and we will try to figure out why you are receiving that additional email. We can see if others have the problem more easily with a new post as well and you can share the link here. Regards, Sean

Hi all, I'm now glad to report that I have just run a test and the bug appears fixed and everything is now working for me as it should be with my 'hotmail.co.uk' e-address. However, just as a small point of interest, it no longer works exactly as it did before the (putative) 'upgrade'. Prior to the upgrade if I sent a mail to 'x' bcc e-addresses (and included no 'to' or 'cc' e-addresses) 'x' mails would be sent. However, after the upgrade and now the bug fix, 'x+1' mails are sent; the additional (unasked for) mail being an 'echo' coming back to my Hotmail inbox. Given that there is a (very annoying) restriction on how many addressees one can include in an individual mail and also a (much less annoying, because it is understandable) higher numbered restriction on how many addressees to whom one can send in a day, I wonder if this extra mail is included in those totals. Does anybody (e.g. Sean) know? Best John

Hi Suzy, This bug does not specifically deal with IMAP or POP. Those protocols are used to retrieve messages from your mailbox. For both of them, you should have set up an SMTP server for sending messages. It is that protocol (SMTP Client Submission) which had the issue, so changing between IMAP and POP would not make a difference before the issue was fixed. Regards, Sean

I'm trying hard not to get too excited...but, after a few cursory tests, I agree, I think this is finally fixed. But EVEN BETTER , this fix seems to have also actually fixed the problem with Outlook 2013 not displaying the BCC recipients in the copy of the sent message in the Sent Folder - a problem that is FAR older than this current fiasco with BCC!! Examples: Outlook 2013 not showing BCC recipients in Sent message - for accounts that use Outlook.com server - when the message is sent using Outlook 2013 Outlook 2013 - Cannot See BCC field in sent mail Many of us were forced to "Save a copy" of the outgoing email in another local folder so that, after the message had been sent, we could review who had been BCC'd on that message - that was, of course, when we could still actually send BCC messages! Like I say, I'm not holding my breath that either of these issues is truly and/or permanently fixed but maybe, just maybe, Microsoft finally fixed a problem. Now perhaps they can turn their problem solvers to the issue of "This Outlook 2013 "The operation cannot be performed because the message has been changed" (many many years and 32 pages of appeals later!)

Outlook.com Moving Addresses From Bcc Field to the TO Field When Email is Sent via Desktop Email Client

Anonymous

I am using and have been using "Postbox", a desktop email client, to send and receive all my emails through my Live account on "Outlook.com" using IMAP. Everything has worked perfectly between "Postbox" and "Outlook.com" for several years and I haven't changed anything on my end. About two weeks ago, I started having problems. Now, when I put a single name or a group list into the Bcc field on my "Postbox" desktop email client and send that email through my outgoing SMTP server at "Outlook.com", the email goes through "Outlook.com" and "Outlook.com" moves all the names from the Bcc field to the TO field. I am assuming this has something to do with the new changes associated with the updated "Outlook.com/Outlook Mail" web mail process.

Notes:

When I do the same thing using "Gmail" for my outgoing SMTP server, my names stay in the Bcc field as they should.
My Outlook.com web page now shows Outlook Mail in the top left corner.
I am using imap-mail.outlook.com Port 993 and smtp-mail.outlook.com Port 587 for my servers. I tried switching to imap-mail.live.com and smtp-mail.live.com as one MS web site suggested regarding the new changes to Outlook Mail but those new setting would not connect.
I tried using Mozilla Thunderbird instead of Postbox as my desktop email client and the same problem occurred in that the name in my outgoing Bcc field was put into the To field after the email was processed through Outlook.com.
Based on all of the above, I believe the problem has something to do with the way the new Outlook Mail is trying to process names from the Bcc field in emails sent from my desktop email clients.

I hope someone from MS can look into this problem and get back to us.

Locked Question. This question was migrated from the Microsoft Support Community. You can vote on whether it's helpful, but you can't add comments or replies or follow the question.

0 comments

Answer accepted by question author

Anonymous

Thank you for the thorough feedback Laurel. The post-mortem investigation (as we call it) into the support escalation is underway.

Glad that the fix has reached you. For John and everyone else, the fix has reached about 75% of servers now. There will be a long tail of stragglers but we are working to reach 100% by the end of next week.

Regards,

Sean

0 comments

50 additional answers

Anonymous

2016-11-03T01:05:08+00:00

Hi John,

We are unable to duplicate this issue and does not seem closely related to the issue we fixed.

Can I please ask you to start a new post on this issue giving a more detailed explanation including the client you are using etc and we will try to figure out why you are receiving that additional email. We can see if others have the problem more easily with a new post as well and you can share the link here.

Regards,

Sean
Was this answer helpful?

0 comments No comments
Anonymous

2016-11-02T11:39:06+00:00

Hi all,

I'm now glad to report that I have just run a test and the bug appears fixed and everything is now working for me as it should be with my 'hotmail.co.uk' e-address. However, just as a small point of interest, it no longer works exactly as it did before the (putative) 'upgrade'.

Prior to the upgrade if I sent a mail to 'x' bcc e-addresses (and included no 'to' or 'cc' e-addresses) 'x' mails would be sent. However, after the upgrade and now the bug fix, 'x+1' mails are sent; the additional (unasked for) mail being an 'echo' coming back to my Hotmail inbox. Given that there is a (very annoying) restriction on how many addressees one can include in an individual mail and also a (much less annoying, because it is understandable) higher numbered restriction on how many addressees to whom one can send in a day, I wonder if this extra mail is included in those totals. Does anybody (e.g. Sean) know?

Best

John
Was this answer helpful?

0 comments No comments
Anonymous

2016-10-31T21:08:22+00:00

Hi Suzy,

This bug does not specifically deal with IMAP or POP. Those protocols are used to retrieve messages from your mailbox. For both of them, you should have set up an SMTP server for sending messages. It is that protocol (SMTP Client Submission) which had the issue, so changing between IMAP and POP would not make a difference before the issue was fixed.

Regards,

Sean
Was this answer helpful?

0 comments No comments
Anonymous

2016-10-31T17:49:53+00:00
I'm trying hard not to get too excited...but, after a few cursory tests, I agree, I think this is finally fixed.

But EVEN BETTER, this fix seems to have also actually fixed the problem with Outlook 2013 not displaying the BCC recipients in the copy of the sent message in the Sent Folder - a problem that is FAR older than this current fiasco with BCC!!

Examples:
- Outlook 2013 not showing BCC recipients in Sent message - for accounts that use Outlook.com server - when the message is sent using Outlook 2013
- Outlook 2013 - Cannot See BCC field in sent mail
Many of us were forced to "Save a copy" of the outgoing email in another local folder so that, after the message had been sent, we could review who had been BCC'd on that message - that was, of course, when we could still actually send BCC messages!

Like I say, I'm not holding my breath that either of these issues is truly and/or permanently fixed but maybe, just maybe, Microsoft finally fixed a problem.

Now perhaps they can turn their problem solvers to the issue of "This Outlook 2013 "The operation cannot be performed because the message has been changed" (many many years and 32 pages of appeals later!)
Was this answer helpful?

0 comments No comments