Well, it does seem like all your mails do this, but not all mails from this list exhibit this behaviour. Most mails from the list, even replies, are addressed to the list. Yours are different in that they're not addressed to the list, only CCd to the list. Some other people's replies are the same, but I'd say not most.
When the mail is addressed to the list, or addressed to someone else and CCd to the list, I can just click reply, but when the mail is addressed to me personally and only CCd to the list clicking Reply replies to the sender only. I can only think that it's a difference in email clients and how they handle list messages. The messages contain list headers, so most clients, like mine, must pick that up and automatically reply to the list, but some, like yours, must be ignoring those and replying to the sender instead. I think. So if I'm understanding the process right, it's not so much a problem with how the list is set up (other than that it doesn't rewrite the sender header), but rather with some clients not honouring the list headers. Paul On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:08:01 +0100 Tom Davies <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi :) > Nope, it;s the standard way these mailing lists have behaved for a > long time now. > > It used to be that people could just click on "Reply to" and their > message would go straight to the mailing list. Now most > email-clients require people to click on "Reply to all ..." and the > mailing list's address is only in the "CC" rather than in the "To" > field. Numerous people have grumbled about it in here but few bother > to post a complaint to the postmaster address and those that do just > seem to get agro for it. > > One person here did try to show how he re-configured his own > email-client to get around the problem and a few of the other > longer-term people here might well have followed his lead but i am > not sure what effect that sort of thing has on non-LO emails. Also i > kinda believe in the "Eat your own dog food" principle so that i stay > in touch with the problems normal users have when they first approach > this mailing list. Regards from > Tom :) > > > > > > > On 25 August 2014 13:56, Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Well, Maurice quoted from my mail, so I'm pretty sure he did > > receive it. > > > > Btw: Tom, your mail was addressed to me directly, and CCd to the > > group, causing my default reply-to to go to just you (luckily I > > noticed in time). Not sure why this happens for some messages, did > > you do anything differently for your message? > > > > > > On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 13:41:14 +0100 > > Tom Davies <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi :) > > > I suspect that Paul's post below has not yet arrived in Maurice's > > > time-line. > > > > > > Email threads sometimes get a bit disjointed, especially if an > > > over-enthusiastic junk/spam-filter tends to carefully reject > > > anything with any hint of code in it! However it could easily be > > > that someone starts from their older messages and work forwards > > > to newer and newer ones instead of the more sensible approach > > > (imo) of working from the newest posts backwards to the oldest. > > > By starting with the newest ones first i often find that older > > > posts have already been dealt with and can thus be safely ignored > > > even if they stir-up side-issues (which also might have already > > > been largely dealt with). > > > > > > > > > On the other hand it might be good if someone could test Paul's > > > script. Perhaps it's possible to combine the 2 ideas so that both > > > the file-name AND the few lines of surrounding text could be > > > output? Would that help? Also it might be good to have the > > > output directed into a file rather than just onto the > > > command-line? > > > > > > I really like Don Pobanz's answer and the way Paul was able to > > > help tweak it. It felt like a return to what this mailing list > > > is largely about = collaborating to build-up a better answer > > > faster than the individuals had time to do on their own. Good > > > work!! :))) Regards from > > > Tom :) > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24 August 2014 19:29, Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Try changing the line: > > > > > > > > unzip -ca "$file" content.xml | grep -ql "$1" > > > > > > > > to: > > > > > > > > unzip -ca "$file" content.xml | grep -qC 10 "$1" > > > > > > > > the "-l" to grep makes it show only the names of files that > > > > match, not the content. The "-C #" gives # lines of context > > > > around the match. Or you could use "-B #" and "-A #" to print # > > > > lines of leading and trailing conext, respectively. > > > > > > > > You could also make a script to pull the contents of all the > > > > files and concatenate them in such a way that you can use > > > > Writer to do find inside one big document, but that would be > > > > considerably harder. Try this first. > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Disclaimer: I haven't actually tested this, just done a "man > > > > grep", but I think the syntax is right... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 18:16:35 +0000 (UTC) > > > > Maurice <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 11:44:31 -0500, Don Pobanz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I find it very useful for finding a word or phrase within > > > > > > my odt documents. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, Don, but that only shows which files contain the > > > > > search string. (It's likely that all files in the list will > > > > > contain at least one occurrence of the string.) > > > > > > > > > > That would be a start, but what I am looking for is a means of > > > > > seeing the string as if Writer was showing the file contents, > > > > > so that I can see the surrounding text. > > > > > > > > > > (Equivalent to joining all the doc's into one big file, then > > > > > doing a Find. Perhaps I shall have to do the joining > > > > > manually...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > To unsubscribe 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe 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 > > > > -- To unsubscribe 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
