Talk:Blind carbon copy

message: In the July 2006 issue of PC World (page 45), it is claimed that "some ISPs matter-of-factly bounce them" [referring to BCC addresses]. Has anyone noticed behaviour of this sort? Which ISPs have taken such an extreme measure, and under what pretenses? Porfyrios 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISPs bouncing BCC recipients? 

message: Since BCC serves the same function in snail mail, why is this treatment limited to email?  Is there a parallel discussion I'm missing somewhere else? Fitzaubrey 06:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: snail mail

message: I probably shouldn't be reading this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.96.131 (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does Field recipients mean?

message: I heard a rumour that it is possible to determine who is on your Bcc list of a message. Is there any evidence for/against this rumour? I think that would be useful info to have on this article. --RealGrouchy (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security 

message: Blind Carbon Copy; where the heck did they get the 'carbon' from?
It would have been better if they renamed it to 'Blind Client Copy' or something.
Carbon is supposedly black ink on paper when you write with a pencil.
Blind is also a weird term, because even if you're blind you can still feel and perhaps read the inprint, whether you see the ink or not. BCC completely masks or hides the recipients, so that the receiver can not backtrace other addresses.
Just a minor complaint about the ill chosen word.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.64.146 (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_paper for the origin of the word "carbon" in this context. Because the idea of sending copies originated in post, not email, the same nomenclature has carried over to the use of email. You're suggesting implementing a bacronym, which is discussed in the "carbon vs courtesy" section.GGdown (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What's in the name?

message: The article seems to present contradictory information. First, it says "BCC is often used to prevent an accidental 'Reply All' from sending a reply intended for only the originator of the message to the entire recipient list". But in a later section, the article says "If the Bcc: header is completely removed, people who receive a blind copy may not notice they are not on either the To: or Cc: and reply to everyone, thus leaking that blind copies were sent."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.202.24.87 (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no contradiction, because an email may have both BCC and non-BCC recipients. In the first case, the use of BCC hides the full recipient list from everyone except the sender. In the second case, people who were on the BCC list may reply to all recipients who were not on the BCC list, which leaks the information that there was a BCC list in the first place. Marnanel (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: People complain about "blacklists" and "master/slave" computer terminology as racist these days. Is "blind carbon copy", then, ableist? 2A00:23C5:FE0C:2100:1D77:BCFD:9BED:31C6 (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ableist? 

message: Wiktionary lists "bcc" as the primary and BCC as an alternative.
--Mortense (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bcc" can't be the abbr.