General discussion

Locked

Multiple email addressing - CC or BCC

By Soup Bones ·
Should all email software be patched so that you can only have one recipient in the 'To' box, and any subsequent recipients go into the BCC box?
Do you agree that having your email address among many others on an email such as a joke, which tends to get forwarded many times, increases the chance of your address being 'harvested'. Recently, that has happened to me with my two favourite e-addresses. I became inundated with junk and the addresses got black listed.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

7 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Simple answer

by A.C In reply to Multiple email addressing ...

If all those you are sending to already know each others email address then it is perfectly acceptable to put them all into the To line - or CC, if they don't know each other then they should all be BCC (and if you want to send to lots of people without anyone knowing any address (other than yours), use a made up address for the To line, something like me@example.com, or send it To yourself and BCC the rest)
This is also a grey area under various data protection acts, for information held electronically (which probably includes email addresses)

Collapse -

Ignore my post

by deepsand In reply to Simple answer
Collapse -

Composing e-letters

by j.lupo In reply to Multiple email addressing ...

I think what you are most concerned with is spam mail. The To: is for all people you want to send the information, the CC is those who just need the FYI on the information, and the BCC is for those that you want to notify but you don't need to let everyone know you sent it to them.

CC: Carbon Copy
BCC: Blind Carbon Copy

The problem with spam is it gets through because the more you use an e-mail address, the more it gets out and known. If someone adds you to their address book, and then gets a virus or worm or even certain spyware that reads that address book, then your e-mail is now retrieved. So, people you e-mail may not intentionally be giving it out.

What I generally do is have a primary account that gets mail forwarded to it based on rules I have set up in the secondary account. I put spam protection on that account and filter anything being forwarded to my primary account. I also run spyware and anti-virus regularly. I am also very careful what signature of mine goes out with every e-mail.

Just some thoughts.

Collapse -

I try

by Jaqui In reply to Multiple email addressing ...

to not send to multiple addresses.
when I do I am sending cc ( carbon copy ) so that others that are interested are kept up to date.
I occasionally bcc to myself at a different email addy. ( when I want the full detailed header for sent time / date for records )

Collapse -

Elementary

by deepsand In reply to Multiple email addressing ...

A) You want all of the recipients to know the full distribution list, and:

..1) There is a primary recipient, then
place the primary recipient in the "To" field and all others in the "CC" field; else,

..2) There is no primary recipient, then
place yourself in the "To" field and all others in the "CC" field.

B) You do NOT want all of the recipients to know the full distribution list, and:

..1) There is a primary recipient, to be revealed to the others, then
place the primary recipient in the "To" field and all others in the "BCC" field; else,

..2) There is no primary recipient, or the primary recipient is not to be revealed, then
place yourself in the "To" field and all others in the "BCC" field.

Collapse -

Thank you for posts so far

by Soup Bones In reply to Multiple email addressing ...

Thanks so far. I probably wasn't specific enough in the first post... you see, I don't have a problem in using 'To, CC, and BCC' properly. I just shudder when I see emails sent by others that have huge numbers of addresses all it the 'To' box. I can't help but think that this increases the vulnerability of all the recipients having their addresses harvested.
Can we protect people by not allowing this to happen?

Collapse -

Not without a loss of functionality.

by deepsand In reply to Thank you for posts so fa ...

Trying to protect others from their own follies is always a thankless task fraught with much peril.

There is no way to enforce adherence to best practices short of removing the ability to do otherwise, which would mean the loss of needed functionality.

Back to Community Forum
7 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums