Hello, the Bat! list recipients,
Monday, December 25, 2000, Thomas Fernandez wrote to OK3 on TBUDL about
Opinion: "Blind Copy" emails should warn / not allow reply to original recipient:
TF> - I am still against a warning which pops up after clicking Reply All
TF> and says &
Hello OK3,
On Monday, December 25, 2000 at 17:15:10 GMT +0400(which was
12/25/2000 8:15 PM where you think I live) you told to the list :
O>>> Not really. RFC states that both CC and BCC recipients might be listed
O>>> or not. That only depends on server administration preference wich
Hallo Oleg,
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:15:10 +0400 GMT (25/12/2000, 21:15 +0800 GMT),
OK3 wrote:
O> It was a long time since I read it, so I had a mess in my head.
That's OK, as I did think that BCC's need to be stripped by the MTA
at origin upon sending the messages on their respective ways
Hello, the Bat! list recipients,
Monday, December 25, 2000, Thomas Fernandez wrote to OK3 on TBUDL about
Opinion: "Blind Copy" emails should warn / not allow reply to original recipient:
O>> Not really. RFC states that both CC and BCC recipients might be listed
O>> or not
Hallo Oleg,
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000 10:49:35 +0400 GMT (25/12/2000, 14:49 +0800 GMT),
OK3 wrote:
O> Not really. RFC states that both CC and BCC recipients might be listed
O> or not. That only depends on server administration preference wich are
O> in turn based on tradition and common sence. But
Hello, the Bat! list recipients,
Saturday, December 23, 2000, Syafril Hermansyah wrote to Thomas Fernandez about
Opinion: "Blind Copy" emails should warn / not allow reply to original recipient:
TF>> I doubt this. When the client received a BCC copy, then it would
TF>> n
Hi Thomas,
On Sunday, December 24, 2000, 1:28:55 AM, you wrote to the list:
>>> I feel that there is a potential for problems with the current
>>> process, in which a "Reply to all" includes the original/main
>>> recipient of the email of which you received a Blind Copy
MSG>> I really agree
Hello Mike,
In a post time stamped re: "Opinion: "Blind Copy" emails should
warn / not allow reply to original recipient" you wrote:
Mike> I have noticed that many people in the typical office environment do
Mike> not grasp some of the more subtle aspects of
On Saturday, December 23, 2000, George F. Schoelles wrote:
> But perhaps in a message scenario that kept copy
> status as I described also forced the CC and BCC boxes to open for
> review would work. And or as an added bonus the background color could
> be emphasized.
Either of these would work
Hello Michael,
Saturday, December 23, 2000, 7:37:29 AM, you wrote:
MSG> All recipients keeping their copy status would not really remove the
MSG> problem. There would still be people seeing the message who
MSG> shouldn't. A warning would be a better way so that the replier could
MSG> then make
On Saturday, December 23, 2000, George F. Schoelles wrote:
> I concur that this would be a cool feature. Or at least that all
> recipients kept their copy status.
All recipients keeping their copy status would not really remove the
problem. There would still be people seeing the message who
sh
Hello Mike,
Saturday, December 23, 2000, 6:32:47 AM, you wrote:
MH> Caution! You have included [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a recipient
MH> of this reply. You were sent a Blind Copy of an email sent
MH> to him/her. Are you sure that you want to do this?
I concur that this would be a cool f
On Saturday, December 23, 2000, Mike Harlos wrote:
> I feel that there is a potential for problems with
> the current process, in which a "Reply to all" includes the
> original/main recipient of the email of which you received a Blind
> Copy
I really agree with this one. A friend of mine just ha
Hi,
I have noticed that many people in the typical office environment do
not grasp some of the more subtle aspects of "email common-sense".
Here's an example that could be addressed by The Bat! (and other
email clients):
Suppose I sent an email to Mr. X that John, Steve, and Susan should
be awa
14 matches
Mail list logo
