How ironic that those who complain about others use of Reply to All also seem to be those who do not respect the privacy of their contacts by using the BCc: field!
If you can’t use the BCc: field or don’t know where it is, that is no reason or excuse to include all your contact addresses visibly in the To: field. If you cannot use BCc: for whatever reason then you need to send separate e-mails to each of your contacts in lieu of exposing their addresses to those they don’t know (if it isn’t worth your effort; the e-mail is not worth sending).
You only use Reply to All when you are confident that “all” will be interested in the content of your response or need to be aware of what your reply contains. Because a list of names are in the To: field does not indicate their interest in your commentary or reply.
You do not use Reply to All to CYA, e-tattle, scold, correct or send nasty comments back to the Sender because you may not appreciate their actions when including you in their mailings. By acting in this manner you are no better than the person you feel the need to berate in front of their contacts. Show some decorum and only e-mail the Sender when you are not happy with either the content of their e-mail or their actions.
If you are the Sender, if you e-mail a bunch of folks who do know each other and include their names visibly in the To: or Cc: field, do not be surprised if those who receive your message view that as an invitation to communication or have a discussion with all involved. You cannot have all those e-mails displayed and then get upset if those you send to hit Reply to All.
Reply to All abuse and misunderstandings can be avoided easily:
- Senders: If you don’t want those you e-mail to use Reply to All, then use the BCc: field to list all your contact’s addresses so they are not seen by those who receive your message. If you for some reason can’t use BCc: or find it in your e-mail program or application, you then need to make the effort to send separate e-mails to each of your contacts. Then, if one of those folks hits Reply to All — it only goes to you.
- Recipients: You don’t Reply to All if you do not know “all.” Reply to the Sender only. And, please use your discretion as to what you feel everyone needs or wants to know. If you are not sure, only reply to the Sender.
Easy!
About Judith
Loading ...![[Take The Email Etiquette Pledge]](http://www.emailetiquettepledge.com/ee-rev-medium.jpg)
![[Email Etiquette Made Easy!]](http://www.netmanners.com/images/email-etiquette-made-easy-100.jpg)
Agreed: BCC is the way to go! When someone does publicly list all recipients to an email that is, lets say, racist or bigoted or personally libelous to someone or meant to bully a person or group of people, then it seems to me to be essential that the reply go to all. The original sender has, in effect, put all recipients in the same room and publicly made a comment in front of them all. It would be cowardly not to speak up so that the whole group can see that such comments are not welcomed by everyone. The reply need not be vicious, accusatory or humiliating, but must be made in front of the whole group.
Hey, Anne:
I agree that if someone has personally attacked you in an e-mail or stated mis-truths that are directly related to you or your character then, of course, you are within your rights to Reply to All and set the record straight.
But, it is *not* your responsibility to assume that all the others who received the e-mail care about or want to receive your opinion about the comments made — especially if they don’t know you! This applies even more so when the comments are in fact “racist or bigoted or personally libelous to someone or meant to bully a person or group of people.” That’s how flame wars are started.
It is not cowardly to refrain from scolding or pointing out your opinions (or in many cases that obviously inflammatory stuff is inflammatory) or POV with strangers. When I receive junk like that, I put it in context and let the Sender know if I do not share or appreciate the content of their mailing. I don’t, however, feel it is my duty or responsibility to share my viewpoint with others on the mailing, particularity those who don’t know me and didn’t ask for my opinion on the subject.
Just because the Sender visibly included the e-mails of others, does not give anyone the right to e-mail those other folks with their opinion. In the case where you are not personally attacked, you should only reply to the Sender and let them know how you disagree with their e-mail.
In a business setting, though, I want people to “Reply All” every time. If I ask Bob a question, and include other relevant persons (visibly, obviously, in the To or Cc line), then I need Bob’s answer to come back to all those people (’cause otherwise, I have to forward Bob’s response to them). Just sayin’…
Hey, Ben:
That is a choice to be made with discretion on a case by case basis. If you have names in the To: field, Reply to All is recommended for the reasons you note if the reply in fact is something they all need to know. Cc: — discretionary inclusion.
For example, say Bob’s replying to you alone because you have your facts wrong and he wanted to gently correct you without letting the others know about your mistakes. Just sayin’… ;-)
My brother and I are on different sides of the political isle. He likes to use his “reply to all” button when sending out information/jokes/photos etc. I often find them idiotic or offensive and I’ve told him numerous times to remove me from his email list, but he can’t be bothered to do so. Recently he send out a series of jokes that were demeaning to woman. I let him know that I didn’t find them funny. Yesterday it was a ‘Pro War’ type video that introduced some new advanced weaponry that he thought was “cool”. In my aggravation I found an anti-war video and sent it to everyone on his list. The video was non-partisan and simply gave a different perspective on war. He was livid! Called me un-American. Now we’re not speaking. He has finally taken me off his email list, but I’m left feeling conflicted about the way I handled it. I’m a firm believer in staying away from the topics of religion and politics, especially with family, but I felt backed into a corner. He is my oldest brother and I guess I have always expected more from him. I know it would have been easier to just delete these emails, but I felt to need to make a point. Any advice on what to do with these feelings?
Hey, Russell:
I get exactly what you are going through — and your feelings are justified. You are being sent stuff you don’t care to receive, you let your brother know this and he ignores your request. When you respond in kind (two wrongs don’t make a right though) — he gets mad and you are the bad guy. I hear about situations like this every day so you are not alone!
Your both made mistakes here…
Your brother did two things incorrectly. First, he refused to respect your requests to be removed from his list when sending the type of content he knows you do not agree with. You have the right to ask what should be sent to you or not — he disregarded that. Secondly, he exposed all his list members by not using the BCc: field that allowed you to send the video to everyone on his list — which you shouldn’t have done.
While I understand the emotions involved, we should never e-mail folks we don’t know or who have not given us direct permission to e-mail them. This bothers you because clearly you are better than this situation so apologize for your emotional reaction while letting him know you want to hear from him directly but not as part of his list.
HTH! ;-)
I slightly disagree with your response. I was on the email list of someone that I did business with. He sent a variety of emails expressing his point of view. I asked him to take my name off the list, which he did not. So, the next time, I did reply “All” and described an opposing position. He then did take my name off and expressed his feelings that I had improperly used a list that he owned. My feelings were that by him continuing to include my name and email address with his rantings was a way for him to let others “know” that I belonged to his clan.
Hmmm… not sure if two wrongs make a right. While I wholeheartedly agree with your frustration and reasoning, I don’t recommend sending your opinion to those who don’t know you or didn’t ask for it. I hope you also let him know that he was in fact the one giving his contacts permission to use “a list that he owned” even if tacitly so due to his lack of proper practices or configuration. When running a mailing list, for obvious reasons, you don’t expose your contacts addresses or have an address in the From: field that will send to the entire list.
OKay I’m totally late to this chain – but something that drives me nuts… At work – i’m copied on something then the other two people in the chain start a back and forth. Either to bicker or to be funny and flirty (two people in my office date- and one is the boss, the other his direct report). It is so annoying! My policy is ignore and don’t jump in unless something pertains to me.
Also, my boss will send a note to everyone when he knows damn well who made the mistake. Then it leaves it open for to discuss. Annoying!
The final annoyance is the “thank yous” or the “congratulations” when someone announcems somethign -t hen everyone else chips back in to everyone!
Hey, Melanie:
I feel your pain! Seems we don’t have an e-mail policy in place, right? I hear from folks like you all the time… What you are describing is just your coworkers being lazy and not editing the To: field.
Maybe you can suggest this article so they are exposed to the proper use of Reply to All? Or better yet, send them to my Business E-mail Etiquette site so interested parties can learn how real professionals communicate with e-mail.
Thanks for sharing!
If it is that serious do not email me, come see me.