I want to send an email to several people, but I don't want them to see each
others email addresses. How do I accomplish this? I don't mean the bcc
field...

Linda wrote:
> I want to send an email to several people, but I don't want them to
> see each others email addresses. How do I accomplish this? I don't
> mean the bcc field...

Well, BCC would be one way, but the other would be to do a mail merge, which
I believe will require word be installed. If word isn't installed, you'll
have to mail each person individually.

--
f.h.

Linda <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I want to send an email to several people, but I don't want them to
> see each others email addresses. How do I accomplish this? I don't
> mean the bcc field...

Bcc is how you do it. Why do you not want to use it?

You can also use a mail merge, if you want.
--
Brian Tillman

I have found the easiest way to do that is to mail it to yourself and BCC
(blind copy) everyone else. Much easier than mail merge. Note though that
many ISP's limit the number of outgoing bcc's thinking that a large list
might be spam.


--
YKW~
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Clothes make the man. Naked people have
little or no influence in society" Mark Twain (1835-1910)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Brian Tillman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Linda <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I want to send an email to several people, but I don't want them to
>> see each others email addresses. How do I accomplish this? I don't
>> mean the bcc field...
>
> Bcc is how you do it. Why do you not want to use it?
>
> You can also use a mail merge, if you want.
> --
> Brian Tillman

Brian Tillman wrote:
> Linda <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I want to send an email to several people, but I don't want them to
>> see each others email addresses. How do I accomplish this? I don't
>> mean the bcc field...
>
> Bcc is how you do it. Why do you not want to use it?

A number of spam blockers will have issues with a message that does not
appear to have the recipient addressed in the header of the message, as you
would get in a BCC. If I were mailing to Internet users, I wouldn't BCC but
use mail merge instead. Which I probably should have said in my original
reply.

--
f.h.

F.H. Muffman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> A number of spam blockers will have issues with a message that does
> not appear to have the recipient addressed in the header of the
> message, as you would get in a BCC. If I were mailing to Internet
> users, I wouldn't BCC but use mail merge instead. Which I probably
> should have said in my original reply.

Actually, you did say that.

> Well, BCC would be one way, but the other would be to do a mail merge
--
Brian Tillman

Brian Tillman wrote:
> F.H. Muffman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> A number of spam blockers will have issues with a message that does
>> not appear to have the recipient addressed in the header of the
>> message, as you would get in a BCC. If I were mailing to Internet
>> users, I wouldn't BCC but use mail merge instead. Which I probably
>> should have said in my original reply.
>
> Actually, you did say that.
>
>> Well, BCC would be one way, but the other would be to do a mail merge

I said that, but I didn't say that I would recommend doing the mail merge
instead of the BCC, which is the key point. "Well, BCC would be one way,
but the other would be to do a mail merge" doesn't have any commital behind
it, or even recommendation as to which is the better solution.

--
f.h.