On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 22:25:21 -0500, Paula Ford wrote:
>> I disagree. IMHO, this is the way this feature works in TB.
Urhm ..... who let you in on that little secret?
>> If you want auto BCCs to extra addresses, supply them in a single
>> address book entry for an individual. If not, create separate
>> entries:
>> Fred (home)
>> Fred (work)
>> It's pretty easy and all options are covered that way.
> For as long as I've been using TB, I did not realize that this it what
> it does with several addresses added for one address book entry, since I
> don't normally display the BCC. The few folks for whom I do have
> multiple addresses have never mentioned to me that I was spamming them -
> god love 'em.
You're not the only one. I've always wondered what TB! does
with the other addresses myself. TB! doesn't display the BCC addresses
by default and I didn't really mind until now. What I've been doing is
assuming that TB! was sending to only one address and Paula .... I was
actually copying and pasting the other addresses as needed. I've been
spamming holy hell on a few poor souls and they have never once
complained either. As of now, the BCC field is kept in view for me. NO
MORE SECRETS!
> One of my first questions to this list was about what could be done with
> the multiple addresses, which at that time no one seemed to know or
> wasn't telling. (If it's been discussed since on the list, I missed it.
> I confess that I don't always read every word of every message.) Even
> were the documentation updated, this behavior is not going to be readily
> apparent to users. If the primary intended use were, as you suggest, to
> send an e-mail to all of one person's addresses, I can't see what the
> devloper's reasoning would be in putting the addresses in the BCC.
I thought that's what creating groups with handles in the
address book was all about? I myself can't agree with the reasoning.
Either a popup query or Outlooks method, or even having all addresses
visible in the address book entries would be more useful IMHO.
> This makes more sense to me if they were thinking, as I mentioned
> in other reply, that this feature could be used for mailing to a
> group of people, where the user didn't want to enter the address for
> each person in the group separately.
Creating groups with handles in the address book? It's already
supported in a different way.
> If that is not their reasoning, I think they ought to have all
> addresses entered in the TO field, where the user is more likely to
> notice them.
Agreed.
--
CU, Allie ...
Using The Bat! v1.41 *:* Windows NT5 (Build 2195 )
---
** Artificial Intelligence is the study of how to make real computers
act like the ones in movies. **
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
