On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:28:27 -0500, Adam Moffett
wrote:
> People can believe I'm dumb for thinking that adding/modifying the
> reply-to: header is a simpler and cleaner solution, and I can believe
> people are dumb for thinking there should be multiple reply buttons in
> MUA's. I suppose we'l
On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 15:22 +, Anthony Cartmell wrote:
> > Yes I have a "reply list" button, but this is the only list I'm on where
> > I have to use it. I have gotten into the habit of just hitting
> > "reply". So I sometimes accidentally reply to the poster instead of the
> > list.
>
Yes I have a "reply list" button, but this is the only list I'm on where
I have to use it. I have gotten into the habit of just hitting
"reply". So I sometimes accidentally reply to the poster instead of the
list.
FWIW, Opera's excellent mail client sets "Reply to list" as the default
a
no thunderbird need a plugin to do this
However, the original poster (adfam moffett) uses thunderbird 3.1.7 too, so
he can have the list-reply function
Yes I have a "reply list" button, but this is the only list I'm on where
I have to use it. I have gotten into the habit of just hitting
"r
Am 31.01.2011 14:33, schrieb Giles Coochey:
Makes you wonder how many servers actually accept these messages these
days!!!
all spam traps?
Makes you wonder how many servers actually accept these messages these
days!!!
Jan 31 13:46:56 gate sendmail[28364]: p0VCkkxF028364[1]: Milter add:
header: X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=70.8 required=5.0
tests=ADVANCE_FEE_2_NEW_FORM,\n\tADVANCE_FEE_2_NEW_MONEY,ADVANCE_FEE_3_NEW,ADVANCE_FEE_3_NEW_F
> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:00:02 -0500, Adam Moffett
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is there any particular reason there can't be a reply-to: header added
> >>> by the listserv?
> > On 1/28/2011 5:28 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >> no its a mua problem to use list-post header when replying
> On Mon
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 02:51:56 -0500, Matt Kettler
wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 5:28 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:00:02 -0500, Adam Moffett
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any particular reason there can't be a reply-to: header added
>>> by the listserv?
>> no its a mua problem to use
