Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:30:49 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at wsfa.org>, WSFA members <WSFAlist at wsfa.org>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Capclave
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

At 12:25 PM 10/10/2005 -0400, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>dicconf <dicconf at radix.net> wrote:
>> Amen.  But remember some mail programs don't show BCC: in the basic
>> heading -- you have to call up "Rich Heading" or "Full Heading" or
>> some such thing before they display "BCC" and a couple of other items.
>
>Another problem is that some spam filters discard all email that
>doesn't have the recipient's address, or the address of a list they
>subscribed to, in the To: or Cc: field.

Any spam filter that discards, unless ordered to by the recipient, is
seriously broken.  Tagging and quarantining is fine, but automatic deletion
is not advisable at all, and doing it without being explicitly directed to
do that is just wrong.  If anyone is running such a system, you are
probably losing real mail.  If your ISP is doing it for you, I'd suggest
telling them to stop immediately, or find a more rational ISP.

Besides the BCC: method, another way of avoiding a lapse of netiquette
while still sending to a bunch of people, and one that shouldn't cause any
hassles with broken spam filters, is just to send to each person
individually.  Most mail programs can't do that easily, but there are bulk
mailing programs that can take a list of addresses and send individually to
each of them.  Writing one would be fairly trivial anyway (SMTP isn't that
complicated...I've sent mail using a telnet program).

>So I see nothing wrong with what Candy did, given that none of the
>recipients is likely to sell the other addresses to spammers.

I have a problem with it in theory, though not personally in this case
since my address wasn't included (I got it from the list).  The problem is
that many viruses and worms use addresses stored on infected machines to
find more machines to attack.  The addresses can be in the address book, in
mail in the mail folder, or even in random disk files.  The fewer machines
with your address on them, the fewer attacks you will sustain.  I have a
fair idea about the computer savy of those I send mail to, but I generally
know little about those *they* send mail to, and I'd really prefer it if my
address wasn't passed on without my permission, by anyone.  I know that
there are others who feel the same way.

Another problem, which doesn't affect me personally, is that some people
have problems with stalkers, pests and other people they'd prefer not have
any way to reach them.  Spreading addresses around increases the chances
that contact information will get to the wrong people eventually.  Though
it doesn't apply to Candy's message in particular, I frequently get mail
that's been passed on by friends that contain headers from the last 5 and 6
people who've forwarded that message along...and all the people they've
forwarded it to since most of these "can't figure out how to trim" idiots
didn't use BCC: and so everyone they thought would enjoy the message has
their address attached as it spreads to who knows where.  I try not to use
a permanent address when sending interesting messages to these people...

>In fact, I immediately added all of the CC addresses to my whitelist,
>which now contains 11,660 names and addresses from whom I'll accept
>email even if it isn't sent to my current disposable address.

So now if you ever get investigated by the FBI, each of these people can
expect a visit to find out what connection they have with you?  :-/

>* Privacy.  A concern when a message is addressed to "Dear AIDS
>  patients," but not when it's addressed to potential Capclave
>  members.

In your opinion anyway.  Others may differ...and probably do.  Who knows
what weird outlooks others might have about being a "known SF fan"?
Someone might even lose their job over something like that if it got back
to their religious fanatic, or English Lit major, boss.  Mostly joking
there, but one really does never know these days.  Erring on the side of
caution is best if you want to avoid annoying friends, or in Candy's case,
customers.

-- Mike B.

--
****************************************************************************
*       Mike Bartman       *   Puzzles Pondered    Obfuscation Obliterated *
* Omniphiles International *  Confusion Canceled      Opinions Offered     *
*    omni at omniphile.com    *   Options Outlined       Smiles Stimulated    *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*            "We do it all!  No job too small!  No price too high!         *
****************************************************************************