Hiding recipient addresses when sending to lot of recipients usingOutlook 2010


T

t

Our email client is Outlook 2010. The e-mail server consists of Exchange
2003 and Exchange 2010. We are being migrated from Exchange 2003 server
to Exchange 2010. We don't want to have the recipient addresses in BCC
field, but also don't want them to be appearing on the TO or CC field.

The reason for not showing all addresses is less people respond to an
email which is sent to many people. Sending the messages to each
individual would be too time consuming.

Our Exchange server administrator, does not have time to create server
distribution mailing lists for us and the
client distribution mailing lists reveal the addresses to all recipients.

Mail merge is not an option, if I am understanding how it
works
http://blogs.office.com/b/microsoft...rsonalized-e-mail-to-many-people-at-once.aspx
correctly.

Is there a way we can use a client distribution mailing lists, but still
hide the recipient addresses when the message is sent.

Are tools like free mail merge
http://en.kioskea.net/download/download-4261-easy-mail-merge-for-outlook
an option?

Thanks
 
Ad

Advertisements

V

VanguardLH

t said:
Our email client is Outlook 2010. The e-mail server consists of Exchange
2003 and Exchange 2010. We are being migrated from Exchange 2003 server
to Exchange 2010. We don't want to have the recipient addresses in BCC
field, but also don't want them to be appearing on the TO or CC field.

The reason for not showing all addresses is less people respond to an
email which is sent to many people. Sending the messages to each
individual would be too time consuming.

Our Exchange server administrator, does not have time to create server
distribution mailing lists for us and the
client distribution mailing lists reveal the addresses to all recipients.

Mail merge is not an option, if I am understanding how it
works
http://blogs.office.com/b/microsoft...rsonalized-e-mail-to-many-people-at-once.aspx
correctly.

Is there a way we can use a client distribution mailing lists, but still
hide the recipient addresses when the message is sent.

Are tools like free mail merge
http://en.kioskea.net/download/download-4261-easy-mail-merge-for-outlook
an option?

Thanks

The mail server is still going to have to issue the same message to
all the recipients ONE AT A TIME. How is it going to take longer to
send to one recipient than it does for hundreds (from the point of
view of the mail server)?

What you want to avoid is sending them one at a time from client to
server. Mailmerge of hundreds of messages takes more time than
sending one message to hundreds of recipients. The server will still
have one copy to each recipient no matter how the client sent it but
you don't want to spend the time at the client to send them
individually.

So why not send them via Bcc. Put as many recipients in the Bcc field
(which is a field in your e-mail client, not a header sent to the
server) as you want and are allowed per issuance of a message. Put
something in the To header that identifies yourself, like "Daily
update newsletter <youremail>". Each recipient sees the newsletter
(to which they subscribed). They only see it was delivered to them.
They don't see it was delivered to hundreds of other recipients. You
send ONE message to the server and the server handles slicing it up
into SINGLE messages, one sent to each recipient.

You don't want to reveal the multitude of recipients of your message
by divulging their e-mail addresses in the To/Cc headers. Well, you
should've be doing that, anyway, since it is highly unlikely you have
permission from each recipient to divulge their e-mail address to
anyone else. Unless all recipients have implicitly (through corporate
policies) or explicitly allowed you permission to broadcast their
e-mail address to anyone else you happen to choose, you should NEVER
be putting multiple recipients in the To/Cc headers. If you know they
all know each other then, sure, do it; however, you wouldn't be asking
your questions if you were sending to less than a dozen of your
personal friends or family. Divulging someone's e-mail address to any
other recipient violates their trust of giving you their e-mail
address.

So just why don't you want to use the Bcc field in your e-mail client?
There is no corresponding header in the message that gets sent out by
your mail server. You never said WHY you don't want to use the Bcc
field to hide e-mail addresses of recipients from each other. That's
the point of the Bcc field. Just put something benign in the To/Cc
fields. After all, CAN-SPAM laws say you're not allowed to hide who
you are as the sender, so put yourself in the To header. Add an entry
in your contact list for yourself. Use a name for yourself in that
contact record that tells the recipients the purpose of that e-mail.
It's just a comment field. If you aren't allowed to add the special
contact record in the global contact list, put it in your own.
 
T

t

The mail server is still going to have to issue the same message to
all the recipients ONE AT A TIME. How is it going to take longer to
send to one recipient than it does for hundreds (from the point of
view of the mail server)?

What you want to avoid is sending them one at a time from client to
server. Mailmerge of hundreds of messages takes more time than
sending one message to hundreds of recipients. The server will still
have one copy to each recipient no matter how the client sent it but
you don't want to spend the time at the client to send them
individually.

So why not send them via Bcc. Put as many recipients in the Bcc field
(which is a field in your e-mail client, not a header sent to the
server) as you want and are allowed per issuance of a message. Put
something in the To header that identifies yourself, like "Daily
update newsletter <youremail>". Each recipient sees the newsletter
(to which they subscribed). They only see it was delivered to them.
They don't see it was delivered to hundreds of other recipients. You
send ONE message to the server and the server handles slicing it up
into SINGLE messages, one sent to each recipient.

You don't want to reveal the multitude of recipients of your message
by divulging their e-mail addresses in the To/Cc headers. Well, you
should've be doing that, anyway, since it is highly unlikely you have
permission from each recipient to divulge their e-mail address to
anyone else. Unless all recipients have implicitly (through corporate
policies) or explicitly allowed you permission to broadcast their
e-mail address to anyone else you happen to choose, you should NEVER
be putting multiple recipients in the To/Cc headers. If you know they
all know each other then, sure, do it; however, you wouldn't be asking
your questions if you were sending to less than a dozen of your
personal friends or family. Divulging someone's e-mail address to any
other recipient violates their trust of giving you their e-mail
address.

So just why don't you want to use the Bcc field in your e-mail client?
There is no corresponding header in the message that gets sent out by
your mail server. You never said WHY you don't want to use the Bcc
field to hide e-mail addresses of recipients from each other. That's
the point of the Bcc field. Just put something benign in the To/Cc
fields. After all, CAN-SPAM laws say you're not allowed to hide who
you are as the sender, so put yourself in the To header. Add an entry
in your contact list for yourself. Use a name for yourself in that
contact record that tells the recipients the purpose of that e-mail.
It's just a comment field. If you aren't allowed to add the special
contact record in the global contact list, put it in your own.

Thanks, we send emails to staff and copy their supervisors. If a staff
knows their supervisor is being CCed, they are more likely to respond.
Putting all addresses in BCC means recipient will think, it was mass
e-mail sent to them by mistake. But, if they see a message where their
e-mail address is in the TO field and their supervisor's in CC field,
they are more likely to respond.

I was just looking for a way to send the message to
Employee_email_list and copy the Manager_email_list.

Mailmerge would have done it, if the mailing lists were created on the
server side.
 
T

t

Because Word gets used for a MailMerge, the whole process is slow. I
don't know if using a VBA macro that is used exclusively by Outlook
would make it faster. There is:

http://www.sperrysoftware.com/Outlook/send-individually.asp

for $50. Instead of maintaining mailing lists that you feed into
Word, this add-on just takes whomever you specified in the To header
to send individual copies to each recipient with just that recipient
listed in the To header of the copy they receive. So you could use
distribution groups in your contacts as your mailing list (you'd have
to check with Sperry Software to make sure it will slice up distro
lists, too).

I don't how to pair up a single recipient (employee) in the To header
with a single recipient (their supervisor) in the Cc header. That
requires synchronization between 2 sets of mailing lists or a database
where pointers in an employee record would point at who is their
supervisor to then use both record fields in the To and Cc headers.

If you're sending an e-mail to multiple employees all of whom have the
same supervisor then it seems you could specify all the same-group
employees in the To header, specify their common supervisor in the Cc
header, and let the add-on slice up the To header into separate
e-mails.

You might want to ask in a VBA newsgroup if someone knows of or is
willing to write a VBA macro to do the synchronization that you want.
You might find something at http://www.slipstick.com/, too.

Thanks for your suggestions. If employee list consists of Mike, John,
Steve and their managers are Tom, Richard, George, then the message
needs to go TO a mailing list which has e-mail addresses of Mike, John,
Steve and is CCed to manager_list which has e-mail addresses of Tom,
Richard, George. Currently, if we send it, the TO field has email ids of
200 employees and CC field mail ids of 50 managers(since some managers
manage 4-5 employees). So, the TO field in the message is overcrowded
and so is the CC field so employees ignore the message.

I am trying to find a way to reduce the clutter. I will look into the
VBA options.

Thanks for your advice and time.
 
Ad

Advertisements

V

VanguardLH

t said:
Thanks for your suggestions. If employee list consists of Mike, John,
Steve and their managers are Tom, Richard, George, then the message
needs to go TO a mailing list which has e-mail addresses of Mike, John,
Steve and is CCed to manager_list which has e-mail addresses of Tom,
Richard, George. Currently, if we send it, the TO field has email ids of
200 employees and CC field mail ids of 50 managers(since some managers
manage 4-5 employees). So, the TO field in the message is overcrowded
and so is the CC field so employees ignore the message.

I am trying to find a way to reduce the clutter. I will look into the
VBA options.

Thanks for your advice and time.

So you have no corporate policies that mandate that communications
from their managers or other admins cannot be ignored? In the
companies where I've worked, employees were not allowed to ignore
important communications. That also meant superfluous communications
were discouraged or banned, like birthday announcement, joke lists,
and other messages that just waste the employees' time and interfere
with important messages by cluttering up their inboxes. Any employee
that ignored critical or imporant company messages or those from their
managers or higher-ups would be called to task. Their manager called
them into their office for a reprimand. I know of one guy that got
laid off for not doing his job -- and his job required reading his
company's and manager's e-mails.

Or perhaps the problem is that your communication is not the critical
or important business communication that your claim here and it is
fluff that they should not only ignore but the IT folks should ban.
If your communications aren't covered by policies established by your
company and required by its employees to honor then, of course, the
recipients don't have to bother reading your messages or responding to
them. In fact, they should be blocking them so they get their real
work done. If you don't have the oomph to make your messages
important to demand response by the recipients and require such by
policy then the employees aren't required to do anything about your
messages.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top