Am 28.07.2010 17:04, schrieb Grant Edwards:
On 2010-07-28, Christoph Kukulies<k...@kukulies.org> wrote:
Am 27.07.2010 23:57, schrieb Grant Edwards:
On 2010-07-27, Christoph Kukulies<k...@kukulies.org> wrote:
Everyone know this when you get an email from someone and he is
disclosing his whole (Outlook) addressbook to the recipients. Often
this is an interesting field for social research :) but that left
aside, I would like avoid this in a case now when I'm about to send
an information about an upcoming event to a list of about 100 users.
Instead of going through a for i in `cat users`do mutt ... $i done
loop I could make an alias of these users, but how do I tell to hide
the 100 users and only show up the one addressee plus a note that
the email went to a group of undisclosed users?
I assume you know it's not uncommon for people to route message like
that directly into the spam folder?
You mean the kind of messages with the hundreds of users in the Cc: ?
No, I mean the kind of messages that don't have my address as a
destination in the headers.
That's among other reasons why I would like to avoid this case. Or do
you mean my very post? :-)
No, I mean the sort of message you are trying to generate where the
recipieint's name/address doesn't show up anywhere in the headers.
Oh, sorry. I thought in the first place (as some other reader as well )
your post was meant sarcastically. :)
So it's probably not a good idea to use this Bcc:- technique?
Then I'm probably left to the loop technique sending a single email to
each user. Otherwise that user
doesn't know that the email went to a "list of undisclosed recipients".
I sometimes receive such emails that are marked as "undisclosed
recipients" in the Cc:.
Could that possibly achieved by mutt forging the headers (in a benign
way of course). Sending to a list of
100 users must not be ncessarily called "spam".
--
Christoph
