On Thursday, June 11, 2009, 20:30:25, Bill McQuillan wrote:
> The recommended way to handle this case is to put all of the recipients in
> the BCC: header field, which will be removed when the message is actually
> sent, and to put "undisclosed recipients:;" in the TO: field.
Actually, don't put
Hi
On Thursday 11 June 2009 at 7:30:25 PM, in
, Bill McQuillan wrote:
> The recommended way to handle this case is to put all
> of the recipients in the BCC: header field, which will
> be removed when the message is actually sent, and to
> put "undisclosed recipients:;" in the TO: field. (Note
Hi
On Thursday 11 June 2009 at 7:30:25 PM, in
, Bill McQuillan wrote:
> The recommended way to handle this case is to put all
> of the recipients in the BCC: header field, which will
> be removed when the message is actually sent, and to
> put "undisclosed recipients:;" in the TO: field. (Note
>
On Thu, 2009-06-11, MFPA wrote:
> On Thursday 11 June 2009 at 12:45:44 PM, in
> , Roelof Otten wrote:
>> I'm not aware of an option in TB that warns for an
>> empty To header, but there are servers that don't
>> accept those, is it TB passing through a server
>> response?
> I made a mis
Hi
On Thursday 11 June 2009 at 12:45:44 PM, in
, Roelof Otten wrote:
> I'm not aware of an option in TB that warns for an
> empty To header, but there are servers that don't
> accept those, is it TB passing through a server
> response?
I made a mistake earlier - this dialog box only a
Hallo MFPA,
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:17:57 +0100GMT (11-6-2009, 13:17 +0200, where
I live), you wrote:
M> Here, TB! will not let me leave the TO field blank. A dialog box
M> appears when I hit send saying "You cannot leave To: field blank"
M> Maybe I have configured this in an option somewhere. (Th
Hi
On Thursday 11 June 2009 at 8:24:19 AM, in
, Roelof Otten wrote:
> It isn't necessary to place a recipient in the To field, though
> placing your own address there means that message is less prone to
> interception by spam filters.
Here, TB! will not let me leave the TO field blank. A dial
On Thursday, June 11, 2009, 7:47:28 AM, Chew Yoke Lim wrote:
> If I have to send e-mail to the same group of people, such as members
> of a society of which I am a member, very often, is there a way of NOT
> having to insert their addresses each time I send them an e-mail, but
> pick up all t
Hallo Chew,
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:47:28 +0800GMT (11-6-2009, 8:47 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:
CYL> I have not used BCCs in The Bat!, so I don't know if by doing so,
CYL> the recipients' addresses are suppressed. But some other e-mail
CYL> clients, the BCCs still show up in the e
Hallo Chew,
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:31:11 +0800GMT (11-6-2009, 7:31 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:
CYL> Is there a method in The Bat! which allows one to send the same e-mail
CYL> to a group of people, but the e-mail addresses are suppressed in each
CYL> of the e-mail received?
Basically TB of
Hello Lim,
>> Maybe I do not understand your problem clearly, but when I send to
>> people without showing their email addresses, I just put them in BCC:
>> blind copy instead of in To:
>If I have to send e-mail to the same group of people, such as members
>of a society of which I am a member, v
Hello Paul
On Thursday, June 11, 2009, 1:51:00 PM, you wrote:
> Hello tb...@thebat.,
> Thursday, June 11, 2009, 3:31:11 PM, you wrote:
CYL>> Hello
CYL>> Is there a method in The Bat! which allows one to send the same e-mail
CYL>> to a group of people, but the e-mail addresses are suppressed i
Hello tb...@thebat.,
Thursday, June 11, 2009, 3:31:11 PM, you wrote:
CYL> Hello
CYL> Is there a method in The Bat! which allows one to send the same e-mail
CYL> to a group of people, but the e-mail addresses are suppressed in each
CYL> of the e-mail received?
CYL> I had for many years used Peg
13 matches
Mail list logo
