Dave Kuhlman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 11:28:21AM +, Tim Golden wrote:
>> Kent Johnson wrote:
>>> Tim Golden wrote:
field and [EMAIL PROTECTED] in cc: My problem there is that I usually
don't want to send the originating individual a private copy
of an email he/she is goin
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 11:28:21AM +, Tim Golden wrote:
> Kent Johnson wrote:
> > Tim Golden wrote:
> >> field and [EMAIL PROTECTED] in cc: My problem there is that I usually
> >> don't want to send the originating individual a private copy
> >> of an email he/she is going to receive from the l
Greetings:
I just thought I'd throw my own hat into the ring. I'm trying out my
new, asbestos-free, flame-retardant underwear. ;^)
> -Original Message-
> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:14:29 -0500
> From: "Michael P. Reilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subj
Tim Golden schreef:
> I would take minor issue -- with you, and with the creators
> of Thunderbird which is my current mail client of choice. It
> looks to me as though you're suggesting that the reply-all
> button is there to reply to a list, whereas it seems to me
> to be there to reply to all th
On 2/16/07, ALAN GAULD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, the "standard behavior" at the time was that
> replies went back to the mailing list, not to the original sender.
But the mailing list was the original sender so it was all wonderfully
consistent. Reply goes to sender only, which hap
On 2/16/07, Alan Gauld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As to standard list behaviour, I don't know of any list thats been
around for more than say 10 years that uses Reply to send to All.
This seems to be a very recent thing. (And most of the lists I am
on have been around for much more than 10 years
Kent Johnson wrote:
> Tim Golden wrote:
>> field and [EMAIL PROTECTED] in cc: My problem there is that I usually
>> don't want to send the originating individual a private copy
>> of an email he/she is going to receive from the list in any
>> case, so I usually cut-and-paste around so that only the
Tim Golden wrote:
> field and [EMAIL PROTECTED] in cc: My problem there is that I usually
> don't want to send the originating individual a private copy
> of an email he/she is going to receive from the list in any
> case, so I usually cut-and-paste around so that only the list
> is in To: AFAIK, T
Tim Golden wrote:
> Alan Gauld wrote:
>> But its obvious there are two views at work here.
>
> (The one which sees an apostrophe in "it's" and the
> one which doesn't? ;)
>
> But, joking aside, I think you've summarised the situation
> quite well, and I suspect that -- given the what must be
> th
Alan Gauld wrote:
> But its obvious there are two views at work here.
(The one which sees an apostrophe in "it's" and the
one which doesn't? ;)
But, joking aside, I think you've summarised the situation
quite well, and I suspect that -- given the what must be
thousands of mailing lists and newsgr
"Luke Paireepinart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> It's not the inconvenience but the fact that it's nonstandard, as
> far as
> every mailing list i've been on except this.
It is interesting to see this thread because its a hot button of mine
that many new mailing lists implement this non standard
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Bill Campbell wrote:
> Having the Reply-To: to the original poster minimizes the probability of
> somebody sending mail to a list that was intended for the original poster
> (which may be private).
Well, no. It minimizes the probability of someone sending mail to a list.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007, Luke Paireepinart wrote:
>Bill Campbell wrote:
>> The major reason for not setting Reply-To: thelist is that it makes it
>> *SLIGHTLY* more difficult to post something to the list and replys should
>> go to the sender. IHMO, one should have to go to a little bit of effort
>>
Bill Campbell wrote:
> The major reason for not setting Reply-To: thelist is that it makes it
> *SLIGHTLY* more difficult to post something to the list and replys should
> go to the sender. IHMO, one should have to go to a little bit of effort
> before posting a message that may go to thousands of
The major reason for not setting Reply-To: thelist is that it makes it
*SLIGHTLY* more difficult to post something to the list and replys should
go to the sender. IHMO, one should have to go to a little bit of effort
before posting a message that may go to thousands of recipients.
Using the ``mut
2007/2/15, ALAN GAULD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> realize I sent it to the sender instead of the list,
> so I send a second message after it.
So do you find it odd when dealing with normal email
and you hit reply and it only goes to the sender?
No, because it is sent by the sender to me, not to
On 2/15/07, Alan Gauld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I dunno about you but 95% of my email is private, only
about 5% comes from mailing lists.
Yeah, me too, but I guess it seems easier to just hit 'reply' 100% of the
time and have it go to the right recipient. My point really was that 95% of
t
"Richard Querin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>>
>> > The following tutor faq has an explanation:
>> >
>> > http://www.python.org/infogami-faq/tutor/tutor-why-do-my-replies-go-to-t
>> > he-person-who-sent-the-message-and-not-to-the-list/
>
> It seems like this is designed for the 5% case when it makes
On 2/14/07, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following tutor faq has an explanation:
>
> http://www.python.org/infogami-faq/tutor/tutor-why-do-my-replies-go-to-t
> he-person-who-sent-the-message-and-not-to-the-list/
It seems like this is designed for the 5% case when it makes th
On 2/14/07, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following tutor faq has an explanation:
>
> http://www.python.org/infogami-faq/tutor/tutor-why-do-my-replies-go-to-t
> he-person-who-sent-the-message-and-not-to-the-list/
I think the argument in that "explanation" sucks.
A asks something,
On 2/15/07, Andre Engels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's getting to be the majority of mailing lists that do it the other way,
> and I find it quite irritating that this list does not - I have had several
> times that I sent a mail, and after sending it, sometimes long after sending
> it, I real
2007/2/14, Alan Gauld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Because hitting Reply and sending to a list would only be
consistent if the list was the originator of the message.
Some mailing lists do implement this bizarre and
non-standard email behaviour but thankfully the Python
community doesn't! This behaviour
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Rikard Bosnjakovic wrote:
> All texts that I reply to this list are automatically sent to the
> author, or - by selecting "Reply all" in my mail client - the
> tutorlist gets a CC.
>
> Why is there no reply-to-tag in all the posts, making the list
> recipient at all times?
I
"Rikard Bosnjakovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> All texts that I reply to this list are automatically sent to the
> author, or - by selecting "Reply all" in my mail client - the
> tutorlist gets a CC.
Yep, that makes sense. It's how mail tools work in a sane world.
You Reply and it goes to the
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:08:38 -0800
Dave Kuhlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 05:20:44PM +0100, Rikard Bosnjakovic wrote:
>
> > Why is there no reply-to-tag in all the posts, making the list
> > recipient at all times?
>
I use Sylpheed 2.2.7 in a Linux box. There are 'Reply
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 05:20:44PM +0100, Rikard Bosnjakovic wrote:
> Why is there no reply-to-tag in all the posts, making the list
> recipient at all times?
Believe it or not -- The email reader that I use (mutt on a FreeBSD
machine that I telnet/ssh into) has a reply-to-list operation.
That's
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rikard Bosnjakovic
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:21 AM
> To: tutor@python.org
> Subject: [Tutor] Replying to the tutor-list
>
> All texts that I reply to this lis
All texts that I reply to this list are automatically sent to the
author, or - by selecting "Reply all" in my mail client - the
tutorlist gets a CC.
Why is there no reply-to-tag in all the posts, making the list
recipient at all times?
--
- Rikard.
__
28 matches
Mail list logo
