dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net (Dave Crocker) wrote on 21.08.04 in
<126206725(_dot_)20040821161806(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>:
TH>> My understanding is that these tertiary recipients would only see the
TH>> initial message of the conversation. It's a visible form of Bcc.
To nit pick: Then it's not a bcc in any fashion. Current bcc's can reply
(though they are not supposed to) and current bcc's are not seen by the
to/cc recipients.
Still, there is certainly nothing wrong with having a visible set of
addressees who are to be copied but who also are being told to keep
their digital mouths shut.
Really, I fail to understand what is so hard to understand here, but it
seems you consistently refuse to get the point.
Let's try again.
The scenario is this:
From: A
Subject: Current state of project X
To: B, C
Bcc: Boss
with the (intended) result that replies-to-all from B and C will not reach
Boss.
*Nobody* is "told to keep their digital mouths shut". B and C are told
"don't bother Boss, let's keep any discussion to A, B, and C".
Boss, of course, is free to decide to start a discussion of his own; it
just isn't expected that he'll want to - the expectation is that he'll
wait for the next status report.
MfG Kai