Hiding grouped email addresses on recipients email.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ralph
  • Start date Start date
R

Ralph

Hello,

I was wondering how I can send an email to a contact (distribution)
list and keep the addresses hidden on the recipients side.

Thanks,

Ralph
 
Ralph said:
I was wondering how I can send an email to a contact (distribution)
list and keep the addresses hidden on the recipients side.
Click to expand...

Short answer: You can't. A contact distribution list is a grouping of
convenience, but is not actually a recognized email address.

Long answer: Since you can't, directly, there are a few workarounds.
1) If you're using an Exchange server, have the admin create your contacts
as mail enabled contacts and a DL to contain them (and they can even make it
so that only you can mail it). It's a little overkill, but it works.
2) BCC the Contact List. The downside of this is that the recipient gets
an email in the mailbox that isn't actually To them if they look at the
headers. You can put your own address on the To line so at least something
is there. The big downside of this is that more and more spam filters don't
like messages that aren't 'to' the person who they are protecting and will
dump them.
3) Mail merge to the recipients. it's a lot more steps, but the users get
mail addressed to them and only to them, and the only thing likely to set
off spam filters is content. Note: I am not suggesting you are trying to
send spam. I am merely saying that spam filters recognize whatever they
want as spam.
 
Ralph said:
I was wondering how I can send an email to a contact (distribution)
list and keep the addresses hidden on the recipients side.
Click to expand...

Put the DL in the Bcc field.
 
F.H. Muffman said:
Can I refer you back to the part of my post that you edited out? Namely,
the Long Answer, #2? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Then why *start* with the comment "you can't"? BCC is NOT a "workaround"
it's a very simple answer to the OPs question.
 
Gordon said:
Then why *start* with the comment "you can't"? BCC is NOT a
"workaround" it's a very simple answer to the OPs question.
Click to expand...

And, in my opinion, a *flawed* answer. Outlook's own Junk Email filter
would dump a message received without your name on the To/CC line if you
used the Safe Recipients list, which is why I'd recommend the Mail Merge.

Regardless, I *did* include that in my original post and I stand by my
answer 110%. If you wish to debate this further, my email address is valid
and will be answered in short order.
 
Thanks F.H.!! That the issue I was worried about. I thought that
Exchange or Outlook may have had some hidden option or setting to do
this.

Ralph
 
I send my html newsletter to 1,200 folks. The distribution lists contain up
to 300 each. Each e-mail has a distribution list in the Bcc field and
therefore, "...the addresses are hidden on the recipients side...." There is
no To or Cc addressing. The subject is a very short AC which stands for
Anthem Compendium. Once in a while, I receive a comment regarding the
message being in the Junk Mail folder. A simple rule on the part of the
recipient solves the problem.
 
F.H. Muffman, you wrote on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:29:56 -0700:
And, in my opinion, a *flawed* answer.
Click to expand...

Sheer nonsense! It's the simplest way to keep the addresses hidden on
the recipients side.
Outlook's own Junk Email filter would dump a message received without
your name on the To/CC line if you used the Safe Recipients list,
which is why I'd recommend the Mail Merge.
Click to expand...

That's an other thing. In any case, your (short-)answer "you can't" is
definitely wrong!
Regardless, I *did* include that in my original post and I stand by my
answer 110%.
Click to expand...

There is no 110% ¡X 100% is maximum ;-)
 
Christian said:
F.H. Muffman, you wrote on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:29:56 -0700:



Sheer nonsense! It's the simplest way to keep the addresses hidden on
the recipients side.
Click to expand...

Just because it's the simplest way to do it doesn't mean that it isn't
flawed. Some would say that some of mankind's greats disasters were caused
by simplest, but flawed, methods. =)
 
Back
Top