Re: Email addresses

We have an email list for our church thatis set upi that way in Outlook
Express. The primary address (the To: address) goes to the church office,
all others are BCC so they do not show on the recipient message. Seems to
work well.

Edward Springer
Athens, AL
<><
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roy Laws" <rlaws(at)northstate.net>
To: "Brent" <brent(at)dogwoodshelties.net>; <hwg-basics(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: Email addresses


> Brent,
>
> I'm no Outlook guru but what I have done is setup my groups as BCC which
is
> Blind Carbon Copy, the person that receives it gets it showing only their
> address.  This may work for you.
>
> Roy
>
>
> At 09:23 PM 11/28/00 -0600, Brent wrote:
> >I'm trying to create a e-mail list and forward e-mail to everyone in the
> >group.  So far, no problem, but additionally I'd like that when the
program
> >sends the e-mail that no one else can see who all is on the list in order
to
> >protect the privacy of each person.  Currently I'm using Microsoft
Outlook
> >for organizing my different e-mail accounts, calendar and contact
> >information.  When it sends e-mail to the groups I've created thus far
> >everyone is listed.  Is there a way to do this in Outlook? I know it's
not
> >exactly a HTML question but thought someone here in the group might know
a
> >way of sending e-mail to multiple people but have the recipients only see
> >their own e-mail address.  I'd like to stay with Outlook if at all
possible
> >but I'm certain that like my WYSIWYG editor I'll be told how BAD Outlook
is!
> >*laugh* Ok, bullet proof vest on....any ideas anyone?
> >
> >Brent
> >
> >--
> >Brent & Sherri Chance
> >Jonesboro, Arkansas
> >http://www.dogwoodshelties.net/
> >~~~~~~~ Home of ~~~~~~~
> >Dogwood Shetland Sheepdogs
> >Second Chance Sheltie Rescue
> >CH. Cataway's Patent Pending,"Penny" &
> >Ch. T'HY'LA'S The Next Generation UDX,"Riker"
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-hwg-basics(at)hwg.org [mailto:owner-hwg-basics(at)hwg.org]On
> >Behalf Of Kate Pollara
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 7:49 PM
> >To: hwg-basics(at)hwg.org
> >Subject: Re: frames compatibility
> >
> >
> >so does this mean that once you get listed you can add frames pages?
> >Kate Pollara
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Paul Wilson" <webgooru(at)gte.net>
> >To: <hwg-basics(at)hwg.org>; "Lori Eldridge" <lorield(at)uswest.net>
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 11:23 AM
> >Subject: Re: frames compatibility
> >
> >
> > > > Could someone please tell me which of the older browsers don't
> > > > support frames? I'm trying to talk a client out of using them and I
> > > > need some stats.
> > >
> > > Too many to mention, many early browsers were incapable.  The real
problem
> > > is with search engine spidering of the website.
> > >
> > > Besides making the website a lot more confusing to manage and raising
his
> > > costs, he needs to know that some search engines cannot and will not
index
> > > or spider this websight.  See http://www.laisha.com/excite.html  for
> > > background.   Excite & Lycos will not index frames.  Infoseek has
trouble
> > > with frames.  There are probably more.
> > >
> > > When we first built our main website, we used frames and had a dickens
of
> >a
> > > time getting it registered.  I found mention of the frames problem and
> > > converted the website to non-frame and we started showing up almost
> > > immediatly.  Our personal experience shows this is not a myth, we
proved
> >it.
> > >
> > > Paul Wilson
> > > webgooru(at)gte.net
> > >
>

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA