h a l f b a k e r yClearly this is a metaphor for something.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
A way to specify if a given cc'd correspondent should (or
should not) receive the attachments
Vaguely related...
_22_20Do_20you_20me...HIS_20Marc_3f_20_22
[normzone, Apr 30 2014]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
I struggle to imagine a situation where I'd need to use this. Also I can see some potential problems: |
|
| |
•care would need to be taken not to refer to the attached document.
•if attached document was mentioned in the email, there would be confusion as to whether the document had actually been attached, or whether the cc recipient was deliberately excluded.
•there would also be confusion in mentioning the attachment when a recipient replied-to-all
•there would always be a suspicion that cc recipients had been excluded from receiving attachments (even if there weren't one in the first place) |
|
| |
Much simpler would be to send one email to all recipients sans attachment, then send another email to the select few with attachment. |
|
| |
I presume the purpose of this is to keep from clogging
up the inboxes of people who only need to know that
an attachment was sent, but don't actually need the
attachment itself. The solution is to host your
attachment with one of the many file hosting services
and send a link instead of an actual attachment. |
|
| |
Don't make any suspicion. Let the email header
show the file names and maybe file sizes to
everyone as well as who did and did not receive it.
My manager really isn't interested in the data so why
put a copy in his inbox. I'd recommend this as a
NACC: (no attachment carbon copy). That way by
default it works as it does today, but an email in the
new NACC field doesn't get the attachment. |
|
| |
Ok, this idea makes much more sense in light of ytk comment. I like his solution. An alternate solution would simply make the attachment deletable from the email by the recipient. |
|
| |
yes, [xaviergisz], [ytk] -- I've thought about this issue
often -- as I'm one of these people that constantly
sends lots of documents around -- and yes, links do
offer a different solution to attachment issues, but it
seems that this situation -- where someone is added
to a thread, and etiquette requires them to continue
to be cc'd, but absolutely does not require them to
receive attachments, whether for security or
interest or having previously seen them levels, comes
up for me all the time :) |
|
| |
Why would you send someone an email with an attachment if you don't want them to receive the attachment? This ability already exists in the form of the attachment function itself. |
|
| |
How about the server withholds the attachment from CC recipients, but provides an icon/link for them to click and download the attachment if wanted? But that probably already exists. |
|
| |
Tatterdemillion, because you are replying to all on a
message thread |
|
| |
Go ahead. Email me. I still will feel no attachment
to you. At all. |
|
| |
Well, maybe if you have a clever .sig |
|
| |
// because you are replying to all on a message thread |
|
| |
If you're attaching something to your reply, don't reply to all (per my original question, why would you reply to all with an attachment if you don't want all of them to receive the attachment?). |
|
| |
Only reply with an attachment to the people you want to receive the attachment. If done properly, this will eliminate the possibility of persons receiving attachments whom you don't want to receive the attachments. |
|
| |
[tatterdemalion], thanks for that illustrative
tutorial
on using email properly. Perhaps BCCs could also
be implemented as separately forwarding the email
to those who are not meant to be visible on the
CC? That would have the added benefit of making
sure they can't answer by accident? |
|
| |
Or maybe we can just use fax? No, better,
interoffice mail? Remember those yellow
envelopes? |
|
| |
This idea, of course, was to be able to complete
the proposed task in both one email, and one
step. If you don't quite understand why that's
useful, you are likely not the use case this
is addressing. |
|
| |