Every time I have to send an email with some clandestine recipients, I think “I should BCC this!” But then I am paralyzed by the fear that I am uncertain how BCC works.
So, ad perpetuam rei memoriam, I’ve made a chart of which recipients can see which recipients.
╔════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ can see recipients of this type? ║
║ ║
║ ║ To/CC │ BCC ║
╠════════════════════════╬═══════════════╪═══════════════════════╣
║ Recipients of To/CC ║ Yes, as To/CC │ No ║
║ this type ────────╫───────────────┼───────────────────────╢
║ BCC ║ Yes, as To/CC │ self: yes, as ??? [1] ║
║ ║ │ other BCCs: ??? [2] ║
╚════════════════════════╩═══════════════╧═══════════════════════╝
As far as all but the lower right corner goes, I’m pretty sure that this is the way it works. Now, in the lower right corner, there are two “???” entries.
[1] Does a BCC recipient see himself listed as (a) a To/CC recipient, or (b) a BCC recipient? And regardless of whether they see themselves as To/CC or BCC, there’s no way of preventing a BCC recipient from replying all and letting the cat of the bag — is that correct?
[2] Do BCC recipients see the names/addresses of other BCC recipients?
╔════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ can see recipients of this type? ║
║ ║
║ ║ To/CC │ BCC ║
╠════════════════════════╬═══════════════╪═══════════════════════╣
║ Recipients of To/CC ║ Yes, as To/CC │ No ║
║ this type ────────╫───────────────┼───────────────────────╢
║ BCC ║ Yes, as To/CC │ self: nope ║
║ ║ │ other BCCs: also nope ║
╚════════════════════════╩═══════════════╧═══════════════════════╝
BCC wouldn’t be very useful if you could just “Reply All” to see the other hidden people.
From your chart and my own previous assumption, there is no real difference between To and CC, right? It’s always come across to me as “To: people who are important” and “CC: to people who might be interested in reading this, but aren’t expected to reply.”
The only difference is that in most email programs, “Reply” goes just to the person in the From: field, whereas “Reply All” goes to the person in the From field and anyone in the CC field as well.
In Outlook, “Reply All” goes to anyone in the “To” field and the sender. If the sender put Bob and Sue in the “To” field in the original mail, then when you hit “reply all”, the sender, Bob, and Sue are all in the “To” field. If you were the sender, then it sets the mail up to send to Bob and Sue and yourself. Which is stupid.
Only Gmail has the right idea: if you hit “reply all” you’re not going to want to email yourself, because that would be dumb, so it removes you. And if you hit “reply” to an email you sent to some recipient or other, it will put that recipient’s name into the “To” line not your own, because you’re not going to want to reply to yourself, are you?
I guess my point was more this. If you email as follows:
From: S
To: A, B
Bcc: Z
Z can fuck things up if he, through inattention, fails to see that he was not a To recipient and uses reply all. If A or B are paying attention, they may be able to suss out that there were some BCC recipients on the original email.
No, he won’t be able to reply to the “To” - a BCC recipient will only have the sender in the “to” field - the mail program won’t know who the actual “To” parties are. It would be pretty dumb if the mail program from the BCC recipient knew who all the parties were - it would defeat the point of a BCC.
From: X
To: Y, Z
BCC: A
Y and Z’s headers will look like this:
Sometimes I do the “fake CC that’s really a BCC but no opportunity of fucking it up” maneuver. It works like this: Send email to A and cc B. Then, go to that sent email, and forward it to C (ie., the person you want to BCC without giving him the possibility of fucking it up) and say “forgot to cc you.”