On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:13:25PM -0500, David T-G wrote: > ...and then Zbynek Houska said... > % On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 04:29:34PM -0500, David T-G wrote: > % > 1) Most users on this list consider chain letters, urban legends, hoaxes, > % > and spam all in the same category; watch out :-) > % > > % To enlighten it... I need send out some news letters, so thats no spam > % at all. > > Indeed. Newsletter ... SPAM ... all the same as far as sending techniques go. . . > % Thank you, I'll try it out. The only reason I ask here that I don't like > % too many recipients at once, so I would rather split it up to single > % mails. > > Well, what about using the Bcc: field so that nobody sees the other > recipients? Then you send it in one go, and have a record of who got > it, but each gets an uncluttered copy. Well, if you want the mail to "look" like it was intended for the recipient, having each message "personalized" is a must. Ideally, you only have one addy in the To: for each, if you don't mind the SMTP load. David's solution above (and mine, too) do just that. "Bcc"ing doesn't really do the trick, although it saves much SMTP traffic on your end. - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgp3hgEUSrVVW.pgp
Description: PGP signature