3 ms·

There is no way to comment on these. As pointed out, many of the things exist, but the submitter is merely unaware. >Email ‘To:’ field randomizer https://medi

There is no way to comment on these. As pointed out, many of the things exist, but the submitter is merely unaware. >Email ‘To:’ field randomizer https://medium.com/products-i-wish-existed/5dc3f5cd08ab https://medium.com/products-i-wish-existed/5dc3f5cd08ab For example, it hurts me inside that I cannot tell this guy to use "bcc:"

kevs 14y ago
Bcc is different than what he's describing
- mertd 14y ago
  Assuming comma separated emails, here is the "product" in Python: import random, string email_list = "a@b.com, c@d.com".split(', ') random.shuffle(email_list) print string.join(email_list, ', ')
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  If the entire recipient list isn't disclosed to the recipients, then there would be no need to randomize it. So, bcc meets his goal of not disclosing the particular order in which he entered the email addresses. Granted, in rare cases, it is desirable to disclose all recipients' email addresses to each other, but I'd personally prefer it if that were the exception, rather than common practice.
  - jamesrcole 14y ago
    > Granted, in rare cases, it is desirable to disclose all recipients' email addresses to each other It might be rare for some people's use of email, but it's hardly rare. It's essential if it's group email and others in that group need to be able to chime-in to the rest of the group.
jamesrcole 14y ago
"bcc:" won't work if people need to be able to respond to the group. but aside from that, I think that he really wants is not just a randomizer, but something that explicitly flags that fact that the 'to' field reflects a random ordering. Otherwise, how are the recipients to know it's a random ordering? (that's a bit of a simplification, though. It might not be necessary if such randomizers were well-known and/or it became obvious from multiple of someone's group emails that their recipient ordering was random-looking).
mgkimsal 14y ago
wow... 'to randomizer'. That's quite a leap, to infer that because 2 email addresses are next to each other that those two people slept together. I guess my social and professional circles are way too narrow. Perhaps rather than randomizing, they could be alphabetized? Or... if someone actually writes back in shock that yellowrubberchicken@yahoo.com slept with hownowbrowncow@hotmail.com, just reply back that you have no idea what they're talking about? Or, yeah, perhaps bcc in some cases if this is that much of a concern in your life?

kevs 14y ago

Bcc is different than what he's describing

mertd 14y ago
Assuming comma separated emails, here is the "product" in Python: import random, string email_list = "a@b.com, c@d.com".split(', ') random.shuffle(email_list) print string.join(email_list, ', ')
fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
If the entire recipient list isn't disclosed to the recipients, then there would be no need to randomize it. So, bcc meets his goal of not disclosing the particular order in which he entered the email addresses. Granted, in rare cases, it is desirable to disclose all recipients' email addresses to each other, but I'd personally prefer it if that were the exception, rather than common practice.
- jamesrcole 14y ago
  > Granted, in rare cases, it is desirable to disclose all recipients' email addresses to each other It might be rare for some people's use of email, but it's hardly rare. It's essential if it's group email and others in that group need to be able to chime-in to the rest of the group.

jamesrcole 14y ago

"bcc:" won't work if people need to be able to respond to the group. but aside from that, I think that he really wants is not just a randomizer, but something that explicitly flags that fact that the 'to' field reflects a random ordering. Otherwise, how are the recipients to know it's a random ordering? (that's a bit of a simplification, though. It might not be necessary if such randomizers were well-known and/or it became obvious from multiple of someone's group emails that their recipient ordering was random-looking).

mgkimsal 14y ago

wow... 'to randomizer'. That's quite a leap, to infer that because 2 email addresses are next to each other that those two people slept together. I guess my social and professional circles are way too narrow. Perhaps rather than randomizing, they could be alphabetized? Or... if someone actually writes back in shock that yellowrubberchicken@yahoo.com slept with hownowbrowncow@hotmail.com, just reply back that you have no idea what they're talking about? Or, yeah, perhaps bcc in some cases if this is that much of a concern in your life?