Conference iosg::all-in-1_v30

    sorry - forgot this part...
    
    if a DL is used at the CC:, only the DL name would be displayed, not
    any of the actual addresses.
    
    	ann

    
      Ann, check note 1302.*, it may not help but.....
    
     

Hi,

It sounds like you want X.400-style "BCC" addresses.

There are lots of political and ethical problems around this area.  A simple
example is:

I send mail to an internal recipient, and an external one.  The internal one
can "see" the external one's address, but not vice versa.

So the internal addressee does "reply to all", and the external addressee is
rather surprised to get a reply from someone he didn't even know had received
the original message.

Also, if this company want to keep their e-mail addresses secret, do they want
the sender's address to be removed from the message to?  If so, they'll very
quickly find themselves being sued by the remote recipients for sending
anonymous mail.

I wonder why they want their addresses to be secret; makes me wonder if they
should even be using an e-mail system.

I think the safest way to achieve what the customer wants is
to send two messages.  Create one message with all the external recipients on
it, and send this.  Then forward this message to all the internal recipients.
Then if an internal recipient replies, only the other internal recipients get
the reply, and so on.

If you don't want the users to have the hassle of sending two messages, you
could customise EMHEAD et al so that they create two messages for you, putting
the appropriate addresses on each.  Rather than using "TO" for internal and
"CC" for external, you should provide fields named "Internal Recipient" and
"External Recipient" instead (or as well as).  These could then be validated
appropriately, and also save the user having to remember which field to use
for what.

Scott

re .1

In the case of remote mail to a user agent over which you have no control, this
is not enforceable.  ALL-IN-1 has to put the real addresses on the message, or
it won't get delivered, as nothing outside ALL-IN-1 knows about ALL-IN-1
distribution lists.  So any recipient of the message is at liberty (and may
even regard it as a right - more politics and ethics) to read the whole list.

The only way to solve this is to send a different message to every recipient.
Each message has just their address on it, perhaps with a reference that it
came from a particular distribution list.

Scott

    thanks for the suggestions!
    
    i'm leaning towards the recommendation in .3 (create 2 messges).  i'll
    also approach them about .2.
    
    the reason that they don't want external recipients to see the internal
    address is that the internal address is "company confidential".  on 1
    system here i'm not allowed to create ALL-IN-1 accounts even though i'm
    the ALL-IN-1 manager! the accounts are created by security via a VMS
    program.
    
    	THANKS again!		ann

    Hi Scott!
    
    	In a previous life I have wanted BCC a lot. You would send
    	a sensitive mail to a couple of people, and you'd want to send
    	someone locally a copy of the mail without anyone knowing. It
    	may be confusing to the remote people as they don't know who
    	the local recipient is, but I decide they don't need to worry
    	themselves about that. This local person would know they were
    	BCC and know they had to be careful replying to the mail so
    	as not to upset anyone.
    
    	The way I do this today is to send only to the remote users, then
    	forward the message to the blind copies, lots of people do this and
    	I think "they should be using a mail system"... :-) It doesn't
    	necessarily have anything to do with keeping mail addresses secret.
    
    	I also don't see a lot of politics and ethics around this. Mail
    	is just another form of communication, and the sender can usually
    	acheive what they want, its just a question of how easily. I don't
    	see that it should even be discouraged, its obvious what BCC does,
    	if you try and discourage its use, people will just use a different
    	way to get around it. I think when you reply it could warn you that
    	you are a BCC recipient, and similarily should ask you if you want
    	to reply to all the BCCs too (if they get sent down the pipe in the
    	first place, which is probably a bad idea). ALL-IN-1 could even
    	split the message up to avoid sending BCC addresses to anyone. As
    	a sender of mail to BCCs, I would worry that people could display
    	the BCC addresses and would probably not use them if they got sent
    	along with the mail.
    
    Regards,
    Paul