exactly;
this requires having to delete the extraneous e-addresses ;-)
Therefore, I'd like to know what is the time savings in this vs.
having the reply go to the list ???
This change isn't anymore logical than some of these responders who
must think we should re-read the old message before finally seeing whatever
new message has been added - and their addition becomes almost lost amongst
the talk unless enough blank lines have been left; logically, the new
message should be where you can read it first - then if you need to
re-fresh your memory, scroll down to see what preceded it.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Steve Edmonds
<[email protected]>wrote:
I think the safe response when using the changed list settings is use
> Reply-all. For simplicity, the only instruction to users of the lists that
> works consistently is Reply-all.
>
> steve
>
>
> On 2012-08-16 05:22, Jay Lozier wrote:
>
>> On 08/15/2012 12:09 PM, Dan Hall wrote:
>>
>>> In Outlook 2003 SP3 - Reply = Jay Lozier <[email protected]> and
>>> Reply to All = Jay Lozier <[email protected]>;users@**
>>> global.libreoffice.org <[email protected]>.
>>> There is no Reply to List in Outlook.
>>>
>> Dan,
>>
>> My reply options changed to "reply all" not "reply list" in Thunderbird
>> when I received your email. The to field is your email and the cc is
>> [email protected].
>>
>> It appears there is some inconsistent behavior with email clients and
>> webmail sites depending on how they receive the email
>>
>> Jay
>>
>>
--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: [email protected]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
