(1) I'm not referring to the sender vs. the list ... I"m referring
to all the others' which are placed in the cc;
by clicking on 'reply all', all the e-addresses are picked up -
therefore, I have to be sure that the 'to' has the sender's e-address and
the 'cc' has the list e-address.
(2) Just what - or who - is RFC ???
(3) Thank you for standing up against these list-members who respond
at the bottom !
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Andrew Brager <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/15/2012 5:11 PM, anne-ology wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
> I find deleting to be slightly easier than copy & paste in order to
> include the original sender. Further, what difference does it make to you
> how many copies the original sender receives? If I happen to receive two
> copies of a response to me, I delete one - actually I delete both once I'm
> done with it.
>
>
> exactly;
>> this requires having to delete the extraneous e-addresses ;-)
>>
>
> Time is not the issue. The issue is, what does the RFC say? RFC's
> determine how things work, and how things will operate together. The
> primary problem as I now see it, is that there is apparently no companion
> RFC (or at least nobody has mentioned it) that specifies that email clients
> need to include a "Reply to List" button. That's an oversight. Someone
> with the skill and knowledge to amend RFC's needs to make that correction
> so that the next versions of all email clients include the button.
>
>
> Therefore, I'd like to know what is the time savings in this vs.
>> having the reply go to the list ???
>>
>
> That's something I agree with, is one of my pet peeves and you've stated
> the case perfectly.
>
> 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
