Re: mail filtering policy
From: Walter Roberson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
From: email@example.com (Walter Roberson) Date: 22 Mar 2003 19:46:39 GMT
In article <sS2fa.29864$Dtv1.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Doug Fox <email@example.com> wrote:
:Our firewall blocks incoming mail if there are over 50 recipients in the cc
:(carbon copy) field. One day, a customer sent us a mail with over 50
:recipients, therefore the firewall blocked the mail. This customer reported
:the situation to its contacts at work. As a result, we are instructed to
:allow over 100 recipients in the cc field.
:How do most companies handle this situation? How many recipients are
:allowed in the cc field?
IMHO, your customer should be instructed to use Bcc instead of Cc.
Otherwise, each of the Cc'd email addresses is being exposed to
everyone else on the list, which raises issues of privacy. And of
course, if any one of the recipients happens to get one of the
email worms [from a different source that is] then the worm might
well go through and send email to each of the email addresses it
can find in the mailbox, thus exposing everyone on the Cc list to
risk instead of just the people whom the worm recipient normally deals with.
When one of my business contacts Cc's large number of people, I
usually send them a small grumble and explain Bcc briefly to them.
IMHO, when sending to people who are NOT working together on something,
then Bcc should be used instead of Cc -except- to the extent that
the use of Cc is deliberate to give people information about who
else received the message [e.g., if you are sending out a
policy-related message, then it sometimes be important that
people see that the message was sent to large numbers of people
rather than just targetting specific individuals.]
-- I don't know if there's destiny, but there's a decision! -- Wim Wenders (WoD)