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!
No related posts.
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’… ;-)