Subject: Re: Suppressing recipients e-mail addresses

From: [email-masked] (Ramesh Gunna)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 18:05:21 GMT

Paul O Bartlett ([email-masked]) wrote:
: On 13 Nov 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

: > I often have to mail one letter out to many people. But what I want to 
: > know, is there a way to suppress the recipients e-mail addresses, so that 
: > anyone who receives the message will not know who else it was sent to?

:     Depending on how current your version of Pine is, you can do one
: and maybe two different things.  In any case, you can put the list of
: recipient addresses (using a nickname, if you have one) in the Bcc:
: header field.  In that case, _be_sure_ to put *something* in the To:
: field, such as your own address (you have to "fake out" the mailing
: system).  If you have a later version of Pine, you can use the Lcc:
: header field.  Both of these should be amply explained in the online
: help.  (Use ^R to get "Rich Headers" if you need to in order to use
: these fields.)

: Paul                             <[email-masked]>
: ----------------------------------------------------------
: Paul O. Bartlett, P.O. Box 857, Vienna, VA 22183-0857, USA
: Finger, keyserver, or WWW for PGP 2.6.2 public key 
: Home Page:  http://www.access.digex.net/~pobart     

As a follow up on this topic, is it perfectly legal & ethical to
supress the recipients address in a mailing list.

I would like to know what others think.
--
regards,
Ramesh

---

From: [email-masked] (jeffrey trust)
Date: 13 Nov 96 23:32:42 GMT

Reginald N Patton ([email-masked]) wrote:

> Use the bcc(blind carbon copy): option.  Place the users names on the bcc:
> line and the recipients addresses(other than any addresses that you might
> put on the to line) will be undisclosed.

To get the bcc: option, while in the header part of your new composition 
(where the to: line is, for instance) do ctrl-R .

Jeffrey

--
Jeffrey Trust ([email-masked]).  Student, Dept. of Geological Sciences,
California State University, Northridge (for which I don't speak).
"The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their
energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves."  -John Muir
                       http://www.csun.edu/~hbgeo002/

---

From: [email-masked] (Rick Troxel)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 18:13:03 GMT

In article
<[email-masked]>
"J.Y.E. Tse" <[email-masked]> writes:

     Perhaps you would want to put your own e-mail address in the field
   "To:", also. If "To:" is empty then the whole "Bcc:" will be visible ...

     I heard that this is a bug in "sendmail". It is true?

Old sendmails, when presented with a message without a To: line, would
fill in an Apparently-To: line with the local recipients; and current
sendmails can be configured still to do this.  So the short answer is
"yes."

Regards,
--
   Rick Troxel     [email-masked]     [email-masked]
     http://www.dc-sage.org/bios/rick_troxel  301/435-2983
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
All effort and exertion put forth by man from the fullness of his
heart is worship, if it  is prompted  by the  highest motives and
the will to do service to humanity.                 --Abdu'l-Baha

---

From: Paul O Bartlett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 20:51:12 -0500

On 14 Nov 1996, Ramesh Gunna wrote:

> : and maybe two different things.  [...]
> 

    Frequently, using Bcc: (Blind Carbon Copy) or Lcc: (List Carbon
Copy) is a courtesy and convenience to the recipients, and concealment
has nothing to do with it.  Suppose you want to send a single email to
500 address.  If you list them all under To: or Cc:, then each
recipient is going to have to scroll through screen after screen of
addresses to get down to the message.  This is irritating to many
people, and they don't want to look at this huge list of addresses. 
Using Bcc: or Lcc: make it easy for them.

    Also, If I write an original piece of email and send it to you,
then unless we have some sort of agreement between us, I have the right
to send to to whomever else I wish.  It is my work, my production, and
I can do with it whatever I want -- including sending it to other
people without telling you -- unless we already have an agreement to
the contrary.  I see no ethical difficulties whatever, and I am not
aware of any legal restrictions.

Paul                             <[email-masked]>
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul O. Bartlett, P.O. Box 857, Vienna, VA 22183-0857, USA
Finger, keyserver, or WWW for PGP 2.6.2 public key 
Home Page:  http://www.access.digex.net/~pobart

---

From: Paul O Bartlett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:48:48 -0500

On 13 Nov 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> I often have to mail one letter out to many people. But what I want to 
> know, is there a way to suppress the recipients e-mail addresses, so that 
> anyone who receives the message will not know who else it was sent to?

    Depending on how current your version of Pine is, you can do one
and maybe two different things.  In any case, you can put the list of
recipient addresses (using a nickname, if you have one) in the Bcc:
header field.  In that case, _be_sure_ to put *something* in the To:
field, such as your own address (you have to "fake out" the mailing
system).  If you have a later version of Pine, you can use the Lcc:
header field.  Both of these should be amply explained in the online
help.  (Use ^R to get "Rich Headers" if you need to in order to use
these fields.)

---

From: Jeffrey Goldberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:40:04 +0000

> supress the recipients address in a mailing list.

I believe that your question is effectively is it ok to use Bcc (or pine's
Lcc).

I think the answer is clearly yes.  Imagine the following.

A sends memo (on paper) to B and A retains a copy herself.
A may at anytime show to some third party, C, possibly A's boss a copy
of the memo.

If you have no ethical problem with this, then you should have no
ethical problem with Bcc.  It is the same, only you do it with
fewer steps.  Since you can always retain a copy of anything you
send and then send a copy of your copy to any third party, Bcc also
adds little new, except for convenience.

Furthermore, there are cases where Bcc is the ethical thing to do.
There are people who don't want their email address made public.  Bcc
is useful for that.

I do think the question you raise is an important one, and would like
to see other opinions on this matter.  Basically, while I think my answer
makes sense, I am not fully satisfied with it, but I don't understand why.

Also Should be move this discussion from c.m.pine to c.m.misc?

-jeff

--
Jeffrey Goldberg                +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826
 Cranfield Computer Centre      FAX         751 814
 [email-masked]     http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/
"I am much fonder of my critics than I am of my fans."  --Thomas Kuhn (d 1996)

---

From: Rick Slaugh <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 19:43:05 -0600

> : Paul                             <[email-masked]>

I have found this most useful when broadcasting a messagfe to a large
group of people in our company.  If I send a message to a list called
"os" in our global address book it will go to about 80 people.  Paging
through 80 addresses to get to the message is a real pain.  In our
organization I encourage people to use bcc and then make it clear in the
beginning of the message who it was sent to so that people don't start
bouncing the message all over the place thinking "Gee, I'll bet Ramesh
would love to see this message.  I wonder if he got it.  I'll forward it
to him just in case."  I add something like this to the tops of my
broadcast messages:

===============================================
THIS MESSAGE WAS SENT TO ALL OUTSIDE SALES REPS
===============================================

Rick