Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(December 1997)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list..
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:21:09 -0800
To: mcb @ postmodern . com, list-managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <34923F6F.E3EB5A78@postmodern.com>
References: <v0313030cb0b7c4e1643c@[207.167.80.70]>


> The chief mischief of Bcc'ing a list, I think, is that it defeats users'
> attempts to filter their incoming mail using list names (etc.) in well-known
> headers.

That's why I tell users (and put in my docs) to filter off of the
sender. I can guarantee what the Sender: field says off my server. And
I think most decent list servers use Sender: now, and it doesn't depend
on coercing reply-to or the typing vagaries of the user.

> There's something vaguely bothering me about promoting a Bcc to a Cc, because
> if the Cc line already has other recipients,

That was sort of my feeling -- while it seems like a reasonable thing
to do at first glance, it's not a no-brainer for two reasons. First is
the disclosing of a Bcc, explictly or implictly. Even though by
definition if it's coming off the list the Bcc: is disclosed anyway (in
the Sender:, say), it still seems weird. And second, that funny voice
in my head keeps saying "you know,if this was such a great idea,
someone would have done it by now. They haven't, so why not?" (grin)

> a list member who does a normal
> "Reply All" will send to those recipients as well, who will rightfully be
> wondering how that person got hold of the message.  (That's true of any Bcc,

Hmm. By Bcc:ing a list that doesn't coerce reply-to as reply-to-list,
is that a way for a user to explicitly say "reply to me privately"? If
so, I'd say that's a legitimate reason NOT to do this, since there's a
legitimate reason to use it this way. Maybe we don't, or don't often,
but in the "reply to me and I"ll summarize" school of mail lists, now
that I think of this, it could be useful. (but, ohoh, there goes that
voice again....)

> A solution might be to add the list name in an added header, like
> X-Original-Bcc: or something, just so a "view all headers" action by the list

But that defeats my purpose -- doing this is primarily for the
newer/naive user. If they're smart enough to know about extra headers
and/orfiltering, then they aren't likely to NEED me helping them on
this....


--
         Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome
                 <http://www.solutions.apple.com/ListAdmin/>

 Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) <http://www.plaidworks.com/>
   (<http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/> +-+ The home for Hockey on the net)





Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list..
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
Next: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list..
From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@hyperreal.org>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list..
From: "Michael C. Berch" <mcb@postmodern.com>
Next: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list..
From: Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@mail.impressive.net>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com