On 2010-07-29, Christoph Kukulies <k...@kukulies.org> wrote:
>> No, I mean the sort of message you are trying to generate where the
>> recipieint's name/address doesn't show up anywhere in the headers.
>>
> Oh, sorry. I thought in the first place (as some other reader as
> well) your post was meant sarcastically. :) So it's probably not a
> good idea to use this Bcc:- technique?
I'm just pointing out that a lot of spam is sent to "undisclosed
recipients" and it's often one of the things that spam filters watch
for.
> Then I'm probably left to the loop technique sending a single email
> to each user.
That's the other choice. It's more work on your part, but less likely
to be treated as spam.
If you're confident that all the recipients are eagerly awaiting your
message and have added your sending address to their whitelist, then
there's nothing wrong with the "undisclosed recipient" method.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! YOU PICKED KARL
at MALDEN'S NOSE!!
gmail.com
