I don't know why, nor how.
I use 0.4 (20031221).
This mail was sent simply by pressing the "Reply" button. Really can't
tell you much more than that it works like this for me.
If I'd press "Reply all" the mail would go to both you and the list.
I've migrated all `profile files' from the windows
Kristian Niemi wrote:
Hey, you're right.
"Reply all" puts the list as CC, individual as "To" --- however, the
`simple' "Reply" puts *only* the list as recipient. This mail, for
instance, was sent with "Reply", and at least I believe it's sent only
to the list, and not you as an individual (as we
> I don't believe any of this is true. I can see no Reply-to: header in
> what I get from the list. Running mutt, "r" replies to sender. "L"
> does a list reply.
apologies - i get the digest which -does- munge reply-to headers to send
to the list. i'll be interested to have a look on firebird
Incoming from Josh Robinson:
> > Hey, you're right.
> > "Reply all" puts the list as CC, individual as "To" --- however, the
> > `simple' "Reply" puts *only* the list as recipient. This mail, for
> > instance, was sent with "Reply", and at least I believe it's sent only
> > to the list, and not
Hi,
Am Sa, den 27.12.2003 schrieb Josh Robinson um 21:31:
> > `simple' "Reply" puts *only* the list as recipient. This mail, for
> that's because on this list, the reply-to headers are set to reply to
> the list.
No, they aren't (fortunately) . This is interesting. I'll go and try
thunderbird.
> Hey, you're right.
> "Reply all" puts the list as CC, individual as "To" --- however, the
> `simple' "Reply" puts *only* the list as recipient. This mail, for
> instance, was sent with "Reply", and at least I believe it's sent only
> to the list, and not you as an individual (as well).
that's
Hey, you're right.
"Reply all" puts the list as CC, individual as "To" --- however, the
`simple' "Reply" puts *only* the list as recipient. This mail, for
instance, was sent with "Reply", and at least I believe it's sent only
to the list, and not you as an individual (as well).
So I don't need
Kristian Niemi wrote:
No really sure what you mean, but doesn't "Reply All" do the trick; i.e.
reply to the list/newsgroup, not to the individual who sent the mail?
h: Kristian
Yes. But is customary to reply *only* to the list, unles the individual
has specifically requested a CC. In Thunderbir
No really sure what you mean, but doesn't "Reply All" do the trick; i.e.
reply to the list/newsgroup, not to the individual who sent the mail?
h: Kristian
Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Uh. I think evolution looks a lot nicer... :-)
Question: The only reason why I stay with evolution instead of cha
Hi,
Am Di, den 23.12.2003 schrieb Kent West um 13:27:
> Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> >Am Di, den 23.12.2003 schrieb Uwe Dippel um 05:41:
> >>Just moved from Evolution (3 years) to Thunderbird at work.
> >There is no "Reply to list"-button.
> No, you haven't missed something; the Moz developers
Uwe Dippel wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:40:58 -0600, Kent West wrote:
Just wanted to say that with today's apt-get upgrade I got the
thunderbird 0.4 upgrade, and it just "feels" better. It somehow feels
peppier/more responsive. Of course I haven't used it long enough to see
what doesn't work
> Question: The only reason why I stay with evolution instead of changing
> to thunderbird is: There is no "Reply to list"-button. I can't live
> without it. Did I miss something, or do you have to correct every mail
> to a list manually?
> In mailinglists I only accept answering to the list (pub
Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Hi,
Am Di, den 23.12.2003 schrieb Uwe Dippel um 05:41:
Just moved from Evolution (3 years) to Thunderbird at work.
Agree here.
Most important (??) to me: *looks* much peppier than the Outlook-clone !
Uh. I think evolution looks a lot nicer... :-)
Question: The
Hi,
Am Di, den 23.12.2003 schrieb Uwe Dippel um 05:41:
> Just moved from Evolution (3 years) to Thunderbird at work.
> Agree here.
> Most important (??) to me: *looks* much peppier than the Outlook-clone !
Uh. I think evolution looks a lot nicer... :-)
Question: The only reason why I stay with
Uwe Dippel wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:40:58 -0600, Kent West wrote:
>
>> ...and it just "feels" better.
> Agree here.
> Most important (??) to me: *looks* much peppier than the Outlook-clone !
Hi Kent & Uwe,
just gave it another try, and I have to agree: it looks & feels even much
better t
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:40:58 -0600, Kent West wrote:
> Just wanted to say that with today's apt-get upgrade I got the
> thunderbird 0.4 upgrade, and it just "feels" better. It somehow feels
> peppier/more responsive. Of course I haven't used it long enough to see
> what doesn't work still, but
Just wanted to say that with today's apt-get upgrade I got the
thunderbird 0.4 upgrade, and it just "feels" better. It somehow feels
peppier/more responsive. Of course I haven't used it long enough to see
what doesn't work still, but so far . . . .
I realize this isn't really a Debian thing (ex
17 matches
Mail list logo
