Already a subscriber? Log in
Q. Having recently been summoned (via group email) to the RSA for a talk and reception introducing a new TV series, I now find myself in a social dilemma: the party was fun, I saw some old friends, and now subsequently want to ask one or two of them to a party at my house. Trouble is I haven’t necessarily got their full addresses or phone numbers. As I am too mean to use Directory Enquiries, the easy option would be for me to get in touch with them via email. Is it acceptable in the age of electronic mail to tap into this cc list of addresses and help myself to their contact details? My question is this: should one be given someone’s contact details by the person themselves, or is it OK to ‘steal’ them from a group email list?
N.G., Oxford
A. As a general rule, for reasons of privacy and security, it is a breach of netiquette to expose the addresses of all recipients in a group email. It is especially indiscreet when petitions are sent around with all potential signees on display. Rather than pressing the ‘send all’ key, group emailers should bring up the Blind Carbon Copy box (bcc), which you click to create new messages. Enter the addresses of your friends in this box, each separated by a comma, and they will not see each other’s addresses on receipt. However, in your case, it is a slightly different matter. You are a member of a ‘boutique’ society made up presumably of like-minded people, many of whom already know each other. You probably ticked a box at some stage — authorising your email details to be circulated. Therefore it is fine for you to ‘steal’ the address of a fellow member. After all — they have your address too.
Q. Re: addressing envelopes containing invitations to a married couple, the female member of which is a doctor (1 November). When I was young we were told that you should address an envelope to one person only as only one person could open an envelope, unlike a letter that more than one can read. Therefore V.H. can address a letter to Dr Mary Smith (if it is a business or semi-business letter) and Mrs John Smith for social purposes.
S.S., Bickton, Hants
A. Thank you for making this valid point.
Also in Society
Also by Mary Killen
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in