On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 12:13 -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 8:27 AM -0400 4/21/10, David McGlone wrote:
> >I give up. trying to reply to messages on this list is tedious. I can't
> >pinpoint whether it's because the list is set up to make replies go to
> >the OP or the OP has his reply-to in his mail clien
David McGlone wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 17:07 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
>> David McGlone wrote:
>>
>> > Also, I do not want this discussion to turn into a flame war or
>> > anything of such. I am simply just trying to have a discussion and
>> > learn why and how there is different behavior he
At 8:27 AM -0400 4/21/10, David McGlone wrote:
I give up. trying to reply to messages on this list is tedious. I can't
pinpoint whether it's because the list is set up to make replies go to
the OP or the OP has his reply-to in his mail client set, or most people
are hitting the reply-to button in
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 17:07 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> David McGlone wrote:
>
> > Also, I do not want this discussion to turn into a flame war or
> > anything of such. I am simply just trying to have a discussion and
> > learn why and how there is different behavior here, but not anywhere
> > else
David McGlone wrote:
> Also, I do not want this discussion to turn into a flame war or
> anything of such. I am simply just trying to have a discussion and
> learn why and how there is different behavior here, but not anywhere
> else.
David, the PHP list behaves like hundreds or thousands of oth
> -Original Message-
> From: daniel.egeb...@gmail.com [mailto:daniel.egeb...@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Daniel Egeberg
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 7:40 AM
> To: Tommy Pham
> Cc: php-general@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP] replying to list (I give up)
>
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:20, David McGlone wrote:
>
> I just received 3 copies of this message. One went to my PHP folder and
> 2 went to my Inbox.
It was sent multiple times. Probably an intentional demonstration
of irony. ;-P
--
daniel.br...@parasane.net || danbr...@php.net
http://ww
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 16:32, Tommy Pham wrote:
> I'm sure that the reason why the this list and a few others are setup this
> way so that if anyone want to reply just to the OP can do so without having
> to figure out or remembering the e-mail address of the sender.
Yes, plus many of the peop
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 16:12, Hans Åhlin wrote:
> 2010/4/21 David McGlone :
>> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:49 +0200, Peter Lind wrote:
>>> On 21 April 2010 14:38, Hans Åhlin wrote:
>>> > Why change the way that has been around for years and adopted by
>>> > multiple e-mail lists?
>>> > It feels lik
On 21 April 2010 15:41, Dan Joseph wrote:
> When you hit reply all, just take out all the other addresses and leave the
> list one in there. The list was setup like this years ago on purpose, and
> they've stated in the past they don't want to change it..
>
> --
> -Dan Joseph
>
>
I'd like to ref
I'm sure that the reason why the this list and a few others are setup this way
so that if anyone want to reply just to the OP can do so without having to
figure out or remembering the e-mail address of the sender.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://w
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 16:12 +0200, Hans Åhlin wrote:
> 2010/4/21 David McGlone :
> > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:49 +0200, Peter Lind wrote:
> >> On 21 April 2010 14:38, Hans Åhlin wrote:
> >> > Why change the way that has been around for years and adopted by
> >> > multiple e-mail lists?
> >> > It f
On 21 April 2010 14:56, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 08:56 -0400, David McGlone wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:42 +0200, Daniel Egeberg wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 14:27, David McGlone wrote:
>> > > I give up. trying to reply to messages on this list is tedious. I
2010/4/21 David McGlone :
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:49 +0200, Peter Lind wrote:
>> On 21 April 2010 14:38, Hans Åhlin wrote:
>> > Why change the way that has been around for years and adopted by
>> > multiple e-mail lists?
>> > It feels like it's more problem to change the way for thousands of
>>
2010/4/21 David McGlone :
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:49 +0200, Peter Lind wrote:
>> On 21 April 2010 14:38, Hans Åhlin wrote:
>> > Why change the way that has been around for years and adopted by
>> > multiple e-mail lists?
>> > It feels like it's more problem to change the way for thousands of
>>
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 09:41 -0400, Dan Joseph wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:33 AM, David McGlone wrote:
>
> > I'm not passing judgment, It just saddens me that I have to send
> > multiple messages and this isn't because of anyone, it's because of my
> > lack of knowledge on how to reply to l
Peter Lind wrote:
On 21 April 2010 15:41, Dan Joseph wrote:
When you hit reply all, just take out all the other addresses and leave the
list one in there. The list was setup like this years ago on purpose, and
they've stated in the past they don't want to change it..
And waste time every sin
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 09:41, Dan Joseph wrote:
>
> When you hit reply all, just take out all the other addresses and leave the
> list one in there. The list was setup like this years ago on purpose, and
> they've stated in the past they don't want to change it..
And we won't, but that does
On 21 April 2010 15:41, Dan Joseph wrote:
> When you hit reply all, just take out all the other addresses and leave the
> list one in there. The list was setup like this years ago on purpose, and
> they've stated in the past they don't want to change it..
And waste time every single time you pos
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:33 AM, David McGlone wrote:
> I'm not passing judgment, It just saddens me that I have to send
> multiple messages and this isn't because of anyone, it's because of my
> lack of knowledge on how to reply to lists that are set up in this way.
> But I think the "reply to l
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 09:19 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
> David McGlone wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:49 +0200, Peter Lind wrote:
> >> On 21 April 2010 14:38, Hans Åhlin wrote:
> >>> Why change the way that has been around for years and adopted by
> >>> multiple e-mail lists?
> >>> It feel
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 13:56 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 08:56 -0400, David McGlone wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:42 +0200, Daniel Egeberg wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 14:27, David McGlone wrote:
> > > > I give up. trying to reply to messages on this list
Daniel Egeberg wrote:
Then get a better email client if yours doesn't support "reply to all"
or "reply to group". It's hardly the mailing list's fault that your
client doesn't support that.
Nonsense. I have used lists like this for many, many years. PHP lists
are the only ones I have ever use
David McGlone wrote:
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:49 +0200, Peter Lind wrote:
On 21 April 2010 14:38, Hans Åhlin wrote:
Why change the way that has been around for years and adopted by
multiple e-mail lists?
It feels like it's more problem to change the way for thousands of
users just to satisfy a
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 08:56 -0400, David McGlone wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:42 +0200, Daniel Egeberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 14:27, David McGlone wrote:
> > > I give up. trying to reply to messages on this list is tedious. I can't
> > > pinpoint whether it's because the list is
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:49 +0200, Peter Lind wrote:
> On 21 April 2010 14:38, Hans Åhlin wrote:
> > Why change the way that has been around for years and adopted by
> > multiple e-mail lists?
> > It feels like it's more problem to change the way for thousands of
> > users just to satisfy a couple
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:49 +0200, Peter Lind wrote:
> On 21 April 2010 14:38, Hans Åhlin wrote:
> > Why change the way that has been around for years and adopted by
> > multiple e-mail lists?
> > It feels like it's more problem to change the way for thousands of
> > users just to satisfy a coupl
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:42 +0200, Daniel Egeberg wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 14:27, David McGlone wrote:
> > I give up. trying to reply to messages on this list is tedious. I can't
> > pinpoint whether it's because the list is set up to make replies go to
> > the OP or the OP has his reply-t
On 21 April 2010 14:38, Hans Åhlin wrote:
> Why change the way that has been around for years and adopted by
> multiple e-mail lists?
> It feels like it's more problem to change the way for thousands of
> users just to satisfy a couple of few.
David was venting based on a discussion in another th
Why change the way that has been around for years and adopted by
multiple e-mail lists?
It feels like it's more problem to change the way for thousands of
users just to satisfy a couple of few.
**
Hans Åhlin
Tel: +46761488019
http://www.kronan-net
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 14:27, David McGlone wrote:
> I give up. trying to reply to messages on this list is tedious. I can't
> pinpoint whether it's because the list is set up to make replies go to
> the OP or the OP has his reply-to in his mail client set, or most people
> are hitting the reply-
David McGlone wrote:
> I give up. trying to reply to messages on this list is tedious. I
> can't pinpoint whether it's because the list is set up to make replies
> go to the OP or the OP has his reply-to in his mail client set, or
> most people are hitting the reply-to button instead of simply rep
The reply-to header should be changed to php-gene...@lists.php.net.
I experience many dev list that are configured this way.
So, in my gmail i change my habit to press "a" instead of "r".
Shiplu Mokaddim
My talks, http://talk.cmyweb.net
Follow me, http://twitter.com/shiplu
SUST Programmers, http:/
I give up. trying to reply to messages on this list is tedious. I can't
pinpoint whether it's because the list is set up to make replies go to
the OP or the OP has his reply-to in his mail client set, or most people
are hitting the reply-to button instead of simply reply.
It just doesn't make sens
34 matches
Mail list logo
