How about a newsletter?
Yes, this. in 1997, one of my friends sent an e-mail to everyone in his contact book saying “Can you please make sure I haver your current contact info?”
One of those addresses was a discussion forum. That e-mail - with 200+ addresses of his friends - is STILL available on the Internet if you know what to Google for. Two of my e-mail addresses were on there, and I still use one of them. That account gets about 120 spam messages a day.
Nothing about what I’m asking info on how to do would stop the above situation.
The point is that doing it in BCC, whilst fulfilling the requirement of keeping the individual email addresses private from each other, introduces new problems that would not occur were it possible to send one email severally to multiple ‘to:’ recipents, to wit: confusion over the proper recipient, and possibly greater risk of false positive as spam, thus rendering BCC as an inferior all-round method of distributing a message to multiple recipients as would be a hypothetical multiple, separate ‘to:’ email’.
Seriously, I don’t think I ever had so much trouble trying to agree with someone.
Don’t say that was the point when it wasn’t your point. I’ll re-post our exchange to clear this up:
TimeWinder: I’m really struggling to think of a legitimate use for such a thing (deceptively trying to make a mass mailing look individual), but I suppose there might be one.
You: *How about mailing a list of contacts who may not particularly welcome the notion of their individual email addresses being revealed to all other recipients in the mailing? (This is probably true of many lists of customers, contacts, etc) *
Me: Plain old BCC works for that.
Breakdown:
TimeWinder says he can’t think of a legitimate use for what I’m asking for. You suggest something that’s already accomplished in BCC. I bring that last point up.
More:
You: It does, except for the possibility of confused recipients thinking they received something that wasn’t meant for them.
The above was where you pretend you weren’t wrong about something and say “it does, except [it does something else too]”
That was obvious bullshit. You told TimeWinder a reason for doing what I’m looking to do and it wasn’t a valid reason at all. I called you on it. Instead of admitting it, you say, “but it may do this other thing”. So what? That’s irrelevant and I think you know it.
Then you follow up with a total non sequitur:
“<shrug> to me, these are all related facets of the same question - if a solution to one problem introduces new problems of its own, then it’s perhaps not an ideal solution.”
I call you on that too. Now in your last post you claim that the point is that new problems could occur if one tries to do what I want to do in my OP. Really? That’s the point of the following exchange?
TimeWinder: I’m really struggling to think of a legitimate use for such a thing (deceptively trying to make a mass mailing look individual), but I suppose there might be one.
You: *How about mailing a list of contacts who may not particularly welcome the notion of their individual email addresses being revealed to all other recipients in the mailing? (This is probably true of many lists of customers, contacts, etc) *
Bullshit!
You’re not having trouble trying to agree with me and you know it. You know exactly what you’re having trouble doing.
Yeah, I know I’m going to get a “wow” response from you or someone else for going through all that in a GQ thread, but it perturbs me a bit to have someone pretend “gee, I’m just trying to help and I’m on your side” when what you’re really doing is trying to be deceptive.
I seriously haven’t a fucking clue what sort of hidden motives you seem to be ascribing to me here, or what kind of deception you think I’m guilty of. Bloody hell - I may be wrong about anything or everything I’ve said in this thread, but nothing was said or meant but in earnest.
Forget it. Please.
Forgotten.
This seems to have gone considerably off track for GQ. Closed.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator