Re: [Admin?]
Re: [Admin?]
- Subject: Re: [Admin?]
- From: Doug McNutt <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 17:15:49 -0600
>
Paranoically, I thought it was just me, but I am getting replies direct from
>
others not through the list. So the list is missing a lot of relies. When I
>
reply to one of the emails from this list, the TO: is set to the original
>
sender not to <email@hidden>.
All might be interested in this tete a tete from the MacPerl list on the subject. Eudora's "reply to all" helps a bit. The MacPerl list continues in the "don't change anything" mode. Apparently this list does the same.
*** begin copy ***
>
Hi,
>
>
> for everyone else. _Please_ read the document at
>
> <URL:http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html>, and _understand_ it
>
>
While I agree with the idea of minimal munging and why the reply-to
>
might be unwise, IMO 'reply to all recepients' is NOT the answer with
>
mailing lists. What if you have 100 or 1000 people on the list? That's
>
going to be an awfully big header if it includes all the address-ees. I
>
have noticed that there is a 'List Post' header field (I notive MacPerl
>
list uses it), which I'd use in this case. Neither of the two mail
>
progs I use (admittedly Netscape and Eudora aren't the best..) use this
>
though (AFAIK); I assume it's a relatively new addition to the mail RFC.
>
>
Jim
all I want, when I hit the "reply" button to a message that came FROM the
list is that the reply go TO the list unless I so otherwise designate.
as it is now, I have to
click the to:
remove the person there
add the macPerl list back in
close the to:
heck with that!
if I *WANTED* TO CC: THE ORIGINAL POSTER I WOULD DO SO. (was that clear
enough or does it bear repeating?)
I am IN NO WAY talking about "including all the recipients of the mailing
list in the TO field" (that's just stupid!)
I am talking about 'reply to all' (obviously) including both
<email@hidden> (normal reply-to field) and <original poster's e-mail>
(from field) and
THAT
IS
IT
capice?
I have NO idea how such a simple and straightforward statement could have
possibly been misconstrued.
REPLY-TO: email@hidden
it's so very simple.
I find it terribly annoying to recieve TWO copies of each message because
the user also has to add-back the MacPerl list if they want others to see it
too. (waste of time that adds up more and more each time I have to deal with
this silliness)
Can I be ANY clearer about this?
</rant mode> =:)
<begging pleading hand-wringing>
*PLEASE PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD FIX THIS!* :D
</begging pleading hand-wringing>
--
-> From the U S of A, the only socialist country that refuses to admit it. <-
| References: | |
| | >[Admin?] (From: Nick Quinn <email@hidden>) |