Re: OT - Advice on Sending a Newsletter
- From: "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:26:09 GMT
if wrote:
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:Jo_Ke.7134$JB4.3758@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>> The last time I sent a newsletter to these people I sent the same
>> email and cc'd about 10 email addresses on each email, so about 50
>> emails in total, and a highly laborious way of sending a newsletter.
>> I was told after that that I should have used bcc instead of cc.
>> Anyway, if I use bcc, how many email addresses can I bcc on each
>> email without the email being chewed up by spam filters?
>>
>
> The whole point of bcc is it's "blind carbon copy", in other words the
> address list is not included in the actual emails, thus preventing
> people finding out other people's addresses,
Yes, I got a couple of irate emails telling me I should've used bcc when
I'd used cc.
> which is the objection
> of using "cc" for mailshots. (I believe Outlook Express may be
> defective in this respect though, as I'm told it wrongly includes the
> bcc line in the outgoing mail, thus defeating the point of it).
>
> Since the bcc list is not included in the emails, you can make it as
> big as you like (subject to the limits of your software and any rules
> on mass mailings by your ISP). Either you email software or possibly
> your ISP's mail server (if they offer the facility) will convert the
> one email with bcc's into individual mails at the time of posting.
> (This is also what happens with "cc", except that the cc line is
> included so people know who else got a copy) For big mailouts it's
> obviously preferable if your ISP offers the facility of expanding the
> cc or bcc lists for you so that you only send one message from which
> they run off hundreds of copies for you. This is where you are likely
> to hit numeric limits, in the form of ISP anti-spammer policies.
>
> Regarding cc/bcc expansion - the individual mails will still be
> addressed "To:" whatever the original mail was (usually the name of
> the mailing list, or just left blank). The recipient's email address
> will only appear in the SMTP routing envelope for the message.
>
> The downside of this is that many spam filters incorrectly assume
> that mail which carries a To: heading which differs from the envelope
> address is potential spam, whereas this is actually the norm for
> mailing lists.
Right, thanks for this. I suppose it's not surprising given that it
discourages spam, but they don't make it easy to send mailing lists.
Each option has some significant disadvantage, whether it's good once
set up but it'll take ages to understand how to set it up, or it's easy
to do but you run the risk of getting it all eaten by spam filters or
web-based mailing lists limit the number of users and require users to
register in order to receive newsletters from the list.
I'm not sure which is the lesser of all the evils at the moment. Hmmm.
--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info
Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm
.
- References:
- OT - Advice on Sending a Newsletter
- From: DAB sounds worse than FM
- OT - Advice on Sending a Newsletter
- Prev by Date: Re: Lost - Ch4
- Next by Date: Re: Telewest speed upgrades
- Previous by thread: Re: OT - Advice on Sending a Newsletter
- Next by thread: Re: OT - Advice on Sending a Newsletter
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|