I mean, you can just insert multiple e-mail addresses into the “To:” field, and I see the point of BCC, but why CC? You can achieve the same effect with “To:” so why have ANOTHER text field? Ideas?
I guess just to make it extra clear to the person you are sending the e-mail to that you sent it to someone else. The same reason people put “cc” on regular letters.
I often cc my boss when I am communicating with another coworker. That way my boss knows I am not talking to him directly, just keeping him informed.
If I were to bcc my boss then the coworker would not know that the boss was privy to our conversation. That is considered rude. For a good example of how bcc can be misused just go rent the movie “Office Space”.
We use it at work in a similar fashion to jaybee.
If it is directly to you, you usually have to do something in response.
If it is cc’d to you, you just have to read it at your leisure.
And if it’s bcc’d, that means no one is supposed to know you’re reading it.
I think bcc’s are just wrong. It’s like taping a conversation. I won’t accept bcc’s.
Just remember that you might be the principal recipent of an email, of even a cc, while someone else is getting a bcc of that same email. 
I use cc: extensively, as I have a lot of people I need to keep informed of progress on projects, but that don’t have to do anything with the information. If I put you in the To: box, I expect some kind of action of out you (generally). If you’re in the CC: box, it is just FYI. Bcc: I only use occassionally.
It can also be a way to categorize the recipients. In a coincidental and frivilous occurance today, a friend of mine sent an e-mail that showed The Onion had stolen our in-joke. A lawsuit is forthcoming. Anyway, he sent it to editors in the To: field and a friend who hung out with us a lot and also knew us in the cc: field. During the year page editors and the chief would get e-mails in the To: field while associates would get them in cc:.
So what do you do when someone at work sends one to you? Delete it unread? Not accepting BCC’s would get most people fired eventually.
Oh, yes. I reply to all on difficult emails.
I might bcc HR on a reply to an email that suggested carnal knowledge of barnyard OR wool-land animals (I always copy the original message) but I just think they (bcc, not woodland animals) are low and sneaky.
Er, what’s bad about BCCs? I wish people wont to send out mass e-mails would regularly do the honorable thing and keep my address in the BCC field. This way, Joe Idiot can’t get it and spread spam or worms my way (intentionally or not).
This is how I use it. In an office environment it is a different game but to spread all your friends email addys to one and all is a no I was taught. Now if you have no family or friends to email, then I could see why you might not be in favor of it.
I have broken some of my friends from just doing the FWD thing with out looking or editing out or using the BCC by replying to all something rather silly and making reference to the person who sent it to me so they get LOTS of email saying, “HUH”? Who is this guy? Add a really stupid joke, that helps too. Of course there are people who won’t answer a phone, who won’t answer mail from family if they are not the first and the top of the list on mail or email or notification of event # 27. I will not make 142 separate mailings to all that need to know the info I am sending, {{{{Big Family }}} but I will not send all the addys to everybody. I send to myself and BCC everyone. That way there are no hurt feelings…
I’m so nice… 
Hey Jaybee,
Where in “Office Space” is there mention of a BCC? That movie is like my bible and I don’t remember any e-mails. What scene was it?
Thanks,
-Sandwriter
I often use BCCs for client communications, where I want my manager to have a record of my message but where I do not want the client confused by seeing the name of somebody who they may not have met.
Quick sidenote - I distinctly recall reading somewhere that “cc” does not stand for “carbon copy” or “courtesy copy” but simply “copies,” like “pp” stands for “pages.” It may have been in a Bryson book, but checking the dictionary seems to indicate that cc does stand for carbon copy. Anybody else recall reading something similar somewhere?
There’s nothing wrong with BCCs if the communication is not addressed to any one particular person.
In fact this is the prefered and polite method of sending out circulars or any kind of mass email (except spam, there is never a polite way of sending spam). It stops everyone getting an email filled with everyone else’s addresses. And not everyone who receives the email wants to share their address with everyone else.
I wish more people would learn how and when to use Blind Copy.
I use BCC’s most of the time, instead of CC’s. I don’t want all my friends to get all the other’s internet adresses. I don’t like receiving messages from someone who got my email address because someone used CC instead of BCC.
Besides, most of my communications are pretty general information (I’m alive, healthy, surviving, stuff like that), which is better for me to send in mass email.
Back in the Dark Ages before computers and Xerox machines, if you wanted to make a copy of a letter, you had to put a piece of carbon paper under the original as you wrote it.
The use of “cc” was just so ingrained that somewhere along the line, it was renamed “courtesy copy.”
Related question, if you “reply all” will a BCC get a copy as well? Afterall, your e-mail does’t know it is supposed to send it to them. Or does it?
Yeah, where in Office Space is BCC mentioned? I don’t remember it either.
That’s it! I’m going to Chatchkey’s!
Nope, if you use BCC the people on the TO and CC lines never get that information. They can’t reply to the BCC folks because they were never sent that information in any form.