Thanks for your input. Like I said, the question was really who’s the bigger asshole. I know I tend to overreact and blow things out of proportion some times, and wanted to know what you all thought.
The kicker to all of this? She apparently forgot to remove me from her email list because I got not one but two messages from her today about upcoming workshops! Now what? 
Is it for yogalates? If so, you should go and try to find your center and chill the eff out. 
It appears as though GaryT was almost prescient with this post:
… And five weeks later, I have gotten another email from a completely different (yet obviously related) organization who could have only gotten my address from the instructor or the state association. This new email “is a monthly newsletter announcing new DVD releases”. I have “unsubscribed”, but since I never gave them my information in the first place, why should I have had to do that?
ZOMBIE THREAD
I am STILL getting emails from other organizations that would have only gotten my info from this lady!
That is annoying. In my capacity as the emailing person for my anxiety support group, I always BCC everyone. I have one member who wants me to forward jokes and stuff to the group, but I never do - that’s not why people gave me their email addresses.
When you are not sharpening your knives, all you do is watch your email and count how many people have done you wrong?
Just let it go.
This is the exact issue. When I was running a couple websites, I would typically have 10 to 20 legitimate emails per day and between 60 to 100 spam messages per day of which 5 to 10 would leak into my inbox.
If it was not for spam filters the signal to noise ratio would have been unbearable.
It might not be the professor’s fault. If you were on her email list, anyone on that list could have copied the list of email addresses to use for their own benefit. And this includes the first email you received that said that Professor X graciously allowed him to do this or that. It’s entirely possible that Professor X gave no such permission, but that the sender used her name to add legitimacy to his marketing attempt.
My web provider allows me to create up to 5 usernames for the same price. I’d check into this to see if you can create a new one, which you can protect with your life.
You must be psychic. How did you know that Avarie has been sitting in front of his computer for the past six months and eighteen days thinking to himself, “I must sit here every second of every day JUST in case I get another spam so I can go tell the dope to prove how right I was because the dope is the most important thing in the universe.” :rolleyes:
Could you forward it to me, though–it sounds so CUTE!!!
I think you missed a year!
And just how could someone have done that if she had used BCC like she should have?
Then you’ve moved from intentional, willful act (sending someone else the email list and then lying about it when confronted) to an unintentional, arguably careless act (not realizing the implications of BCC vs. transparent email addresses). These are two different degrees of culpability.
I don’t think anyone thought it was the first of those, rather that the instructor was so clueless that she didn’t realize that his email addy would be out there for any number of entities to see and harvest because she listed it in the TO field instead of using BCC. Then instead of acknowledging her error, she got defensive about it. You may consider it a different degree of culpability, but I say it’s still her fault. She screwed up out of ignorance rather than out of malice, but the negative consequences to Avarie537 are the same regardless.
I don’t think the propriety of using BCC rather than TO is nearly as universally understood as some people here seem to think. (I’m not sure it would have occurred to me to do so, had I been in the instructor’s position.)
I get defensive, too, when I’m accused of doing something I (to my knowledge) have not done. Especially in the not-so-diplomatic manner the OP employed. And the way I’m reading things, that’s what happened here.
Unless the fact that email addresses can be harvested from TO: fields was pointed out - and I see no indication that it was - the instructor likely sincerely thought that she could not have been the source of the leak. Her denial was thus, to her knowledge, truthful.
It seems to me that the OP felt the privacy concerns of the TO: field were so obvious that they did not merit pointing out. I don’t think I agree. Further, I don’t think the instructor was too likely to figure out the error of her ways from the harangue she got from the OP, so it seems likely to me that she’s still doing the same thing a year and a half later (unless somebody else along the way pointed out the privacy risks).
This is one of my pet peeves.
So much so that last month I made a web page explaining exactly what the problems are and explaining, with screenshots, how to use BCC in Gmail.
In general, I refuse to accept bulk mailings from friends and family. I tell them so in a very polite way. Eventually I explain the reasons why, if they care to listen. Sometimes I have to repeat this process three or four times (one guy from church still hasn’t gotten the point after several terse messages from me).
And they always say “But I knew you would like this one” and send along some urban legend that was busted by Snopes ten years ago.
I think you overreacted, OP. Should she have done what she did? No, of course not. But sheesh, it’s an email address - it’s not like she plastered your social security number all over teh intarwebz.
Lightweight.
Best wishes,
hh
I support you completely.
The instructors response indicates she has no respect for others privacy and refuses to take responsibility for her actions.
Thank you for fighting her small bit of ignorance.
You were rude, she was clueless, but other than pointing our your initial rudeness, I don’t see any other rude replies ( I am surprised at how someone in this day and age can not understand “reply all” cc and bcc?).
Sorry, but I think you were the bigger jerk. She was WRONG and she continued to be mistaken (possibly lying, possibly just clueless) in her replies (but note she wasn’t “shouting” as you did in the first place). But you started off being mean and unreasonable. Even if she were idiotic to the point of open-mouthed drooling about how email works, was it really necessary to make your very next email to her so rude?
You could have (with your first email) simply assumed stupidity on her part, nicely asked to be removed from her list (without the yelling or attitude), and nicely pointed out that she may have mistakenly forgotten to bcc, because your email got inadvertently sent to her other contacts (or whatever). If you’d worded it such that you were giving her the benefit of the doubt, I’ll bet you money this would have gone down MUCH differently.
It sounds as if, from your subsequent emails that she either STILL didn’t understand how her mistake allowed others to get your email, or else she was put on the defensive (and then fibbed) because of your first snotty email. So after she got the “don’t EVER give it out again” email, it didn’t matter that she was wrong, or stupid. What’s a person supposed to do when they get THAT jerkish a message from someone, grovel?