RIP Philo

Email CC etiquette question

Within my own company I limit CC's to folks who are absolutely necessary. Here, the understanding is that if someone is CC'd, their input is requested or this directly affects them. The CC is mostly deprecated, a forward is more common with a direct question in the header or subject.

However, I am currently talking to two folks at two other companies, and they've gradually added about dozen people to the CC list.

I have no idea who half of these people are, though a few of them are their managers, and am not sure why they are included in this quick back and forth "OK now please send me x." "Did you x the y?" "What version z did you use?" and etc.

But it's rude, right, to trim the CC list if someone else added them?

What about cutting off the >100 lines of >>>>>>'s at the bottom?
Permalink Send private email no label 
March 6th, 2007 1:41pm
>> But it's rude, right, to trim the CC list if someone else added them?

Not for the first time. If you feel your reply need not have their inputs or if they need not be in the loop, then chop them off. If your recipient replies with all the CC's restored, it then becomes rude to not keep them in the loop.

>> What about cutting off the >100 lines of >>>>>>'s at the bottom?

Unless, a new recipient is added, remove them all. All the parties already have all the emails.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
March 6th, 2007 1:48pm
I thought CC was explicitly scoped as a sniper's field.

Of course, I am 1/2 kidding. It does still amaze and infuriate me when I see CC's going to managers where the intent is not so much information as finger pointing.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
March 6th, 2007 1:52pm
And why isn't "finger pointing" important? Accountability is paramount in any organisation. Yes, there is a way to formalise it. But, when the proverbial hits the idiomatic, fingers have to be pointed *and* mess cleaned up.
Permalink Send private email के. जे. 
March 6th, 2007 2:03pm
>What about cutting off the >100 lines of >>>>>>'s at the
>bottom?

What about expecting the recipient to sort the relevant information out of all the >>>>>>>'s Or expecting actions to be taken on account of cc'ed or forwarded emails where not even the slightest effort was put into informing the recipient what the hell the mail is about, because, well I don't have any time to summarize the entire 200 mail exchange, but it's attached and I'm sure you do and can just sort through all the irrelevant crap in between yourself.
Permalink Send private email a2800276 
March 6th, 2007 2:04pm
CC has nothing to do with expecting a reply or input from the copied party.  If you wanted input or reply from them, they'd be in the To: field along with the other direct recipients.  'CC' is for "hey, you might be interested in this."

Often it's used as "Hey, check out what this shithead is doing", which is unfortunate.

The idea that 'CC''d people should respond is a throwback to the original incarnation of 'CC' where someone actually received a physical carbon copy, and the 'To:' field on a memorandum, by convention, could contain only one person (or entity like a department).
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 6th, 2007 2:07pm
BCC or Forward is much better for "Hey, check out what this shithead is doing"