JC Dill wrote:
> IMHO, you use the To: line for the person the email is addressed TO.
Or PERSONS. There can be more than one addressee there. You know that.
> You CC: others who you want to keep appraised of the discussion.
Exactly. Someone whom you want to respond, whom you in fact expect to
reply as in your earlier example, is not merely being kept apprised [the
word I trust you meant] but is actively involved. People whose
immediate attention matters belong on the To: line.
In your illustrations, the Cc: line is ambiguous: if you send me a
carbon, how much attention and time should I give it? Are you saying
I'm peripheral, or that I'm integral to the discussion but somebody else
is more important than I, and you just refuse to put more than one
address into To:? Would replying be butting in where I should just be
listening, or would not replying be rudely ignoring the matter and the
other people?
You say there are companies where that's how it's done. No doubt there
are. I'm saying that they handle it badly. Existence doesn't prove merit.
In my illustrations, the last person in To: is still integral and the
first person in Cc: is already peripheral. You know how much
involvement the sender ascribes to you. There's no guessing.
> So, that's why I feel that electing to implement an OoO to reply to a
> CC'd email is an individual decision.
Then one thing we can agree on is that allowing the user the choice is a
far better idea than hard-coding the software or hard-lining the policy.
DWT
I've often apprised bosses to their faces on company time but have
appraised them only behind their backs after hours. Otherwise the
appraisals would have led to reprisals.
References:
|
|
