Steve Lamb wrote:
Mutt is certainly not for everyone, but that is only because the setup
requires more work, not because you are restricted in any way.
Really. Access 2 mail accounts using completely separate
settings, keeping separate sent-archives, separate SMTP servers,
separate inbound
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 06:36:36PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 10:30:30PM +, Pigeon wrote:
But if you're not put off... you're right that it doesn't require
much. If you're using exim (which is the default MTA with Debian),
create a file ~/.forward containing the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 02:28:02PM +, Pigeon wrote:
With mutt, at least, which it seems can generally be trusted to do the
Right Thing, both reply-to headers are honoured, so hitting 'r' sends
a reply both to the list and to the user's
On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 01:52:58PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 02:28:02PM +, Pigeon wrote:
With mutt, at least, which it seems can generally be trusted to do the
Right Thing, both reply-to headers are honoured, so hitting 'r' sends
a reply both to the list and to
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:01:06 +0100,
Thorsten Haude [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You are repeating yourself. Nobody claims that Mutt has filters. Or do
you decry the fact that Mutt is no POP3 client?
..ah, try:' mutt -f pop://yer-account:[EMAIL PROTECTED] '. ;-)
--
On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 03:35:41PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
That's what procmail is for, though.
No, procmail is what the tech demo mutt needs to act like a real mail
client. That's a deficiency in mutt.
If I relied on the filtering in my MUA (if it had any), it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 08:52:27PM +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
With procmail, all the filtering is done before it hits my MUA, keeping
things nice and clean.
That's what I'm saying...why limit yourself when you can make a simple
move that makes it
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 03:12:09PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Richard Hector wrote:
The trouble is, you can't. If the list has changed the Reply-to header,
it's thrown away what was there before. You could fall back to the From
or Sender header, but that might not be where the sender reads their
Richard Hector wrote:
If I relied on the filtering in my MUA (if it had any), it would get
seriously screwed if I wanted to use more than one MUA against the same
IMAP server or Maildir. I'd have to implement all the same filters in
both.
With procmail, all the filtering is done before it hits my
Paul Johnson wrote:
That's what I'm saying...why limit yourself when you can make a simple
move that makes it way easier to switch MUAs when your tastes change?
And when you're getting mail from a source that doesn't have procmail?
We've gone over this dozens of times on this list. There are
Richard Hector wrote:
Sure you _could_ set the From: header to your work one, but that's
arguably wrong, and I entirely sympathise with ISPs who don't allow it.
How is i wrong? Past 5 years across 4 broadband connections to 3 ISPs
I've never had to change my email address because I've never
Hi,
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-08 00:35):
Paul Johnson wrote:
That's what procmail is for, though.
No, procmail is what the tech demo mutt needs to act like a real mail
client. That's a deficiency in mutt.
Nope, you could also use a *good* MDA instead of Procmail. Which shows
why the
Moin,
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-08 10:52):
Paul Johnson wrote:
That's what I'm saying...why limit yourself when you can make a simple
move that makes it way easier to switch MUAs when your tastes change?
And when you're getting mail from a source that doesn't have procmail?
Why would I
Hi,
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-08 00:33):
Paul Johnson wrote:
OK, then why does TB still have more in common than OE than a real
mail client?
Depends on what you call a real mail client. I see TB having far more
in commong with Sylpheed-claws and kmail than lookout. Mutt, on the
Thorsten Haude wrote:
Nope, you could also use a *good* MDA instead of Procmail. Which shows
why the modular Unix approach is much more powerful than any catch-all
application.
You're presuming 2 things.
1: The person has access to install a decent MDA on said machine.
2: The person has
Thorsten Haude wrote:
Why would I care? Most systems don't use Procmail on outgoing mails,
and even if they would, how would the receiver be affected?
Who said anything about outgoing? I said clearly, getting mail from a
system that does not have procmail. You know, that whole POP and IMAP
Thorsten Haude wrote:
Funny you see it that way. For years Mutt's feature list was copied to
the other clients todo list almost verbatim.
Funny? That would kind of be the definition of a tech. demo. Look,
this is neat and can do cool stuff but it is incapable of doing anything
serious or
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 02:34:07AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Thorsten Haude wrote:
Funny you see it that way. For years Mutt's feature list was copied to
the other clients todo list almost verbatim.
Funny? That would kind of be the definition of a tech. demo. Look,
this is neat and
Hi,
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-08 11:29):
Thorsten Haude wrote:
Nope, you could also use a *good* MDA instead of Procmail. Which shows
why the modular Unix approach is much more powerful than any catch-all
application.
You're presuming 2 things.
1: The person has access to install a decent
Nano Nano wrote:
You're making tons of statements that just apply to you. I like mutt.
I can make it think like me. It doesn't feel like a box.
Oh, I can get mutt to work but only with a few hours of work. The same
amount of work that would take me maybe 20m on a complette client.
--
Hi,
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-08 11:34):
Thorsten Haude wrote:
Funny you see it that way. For years Mutt's feature list was copied to
the other clients todo list almost verbatim.
Funny? That would kind of be the definition of a tech. demo. Look,
this is neat and can do cool stuff but it
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 02:44:57AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Nano Nano wrote:
You're making tons of statements that just apply to you. I like mutt.
I can make it think like me. It doesn't feel like a box.
Oh, I can get mutt to work but only with a few hours of work. The same
amount
Thorsten Haude wrote:
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-08 11:29):
1: The person has access to install a decent MDA on said machine.
2: The person has access at ALL to configure said MDA in the first place.
I assume that there is a MDA installed yes.
Why? QMail, Sendmail, Exim and I believe
Nano Nano wrote:
www.dotfiles.com
Even with dotfiles. The maintenance costs alone on keeping everything up
to date in the mutt method is a preclusion. BTW, personally I settled on
Wills .muttrc as a template. It was the most modular of the set at the time
(~4 months ago) but even still
Thorsten Haude wrote:
Do you suffer from cognitive dissonance? Don't you see how many people
use Mutt and are quite happy with it? Do you think they get money to
say so?
No. But they suffer from cognitive dissonance in saying that mutt (and
procmail...) are the end-all, be-all solution to
Hi,
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-08 11:32):
Thorsten Haude wrote:
I said clearly
No you didn't.
getting mail from a system that does not have procmail. You know,
that whole POP and IMAP thing?
I see. As soon as I *get* mail, I may filter it, don't I? Why would
filter A be better than filter
Hi,
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-08 11:44):
Nano Nano wrote:
You're making tons of statements that just apply to you. I like mutt.
I can make it think like me. It doesn't feel like a box.
Oh, I can get mutt to work but only with a few hours of work. The same
amount of work that would
Hi,
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-08 11:57):
Thorsten Haude wrote:
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-08 11:29):
1: The person has access to install a decent MDA on said machine.
2: The person has access at ALL to configure said MDA in the first place.
I assume that there is a MDA installed yes.
Moin,
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-08 12:04):
Thorsten Haude wrote:
Do you suffer from cognitive dissonance? Don't you see how many people
use Mutt and are quite happy with it? Do you think they get money to
say so?
No. But they suffer from cognitive dissonance in saying that mutt (and
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 01:58:09AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Richard Hector wrote:
Sure you _could_ set the From: header to your work one, but that's
arguably wrong, and I entirely sympathise with ISPs who don't allow it.
How is i wrong?
Well, it's not where you're sending from, is it?
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 01:48:13AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Richard Hector wrote:
If I relied on the filtering in my MUA (if it had any), it would get
seriously screwed if I wanted to use more than one MUA against the same
IMAP server or Maildir. I'd have to implement all the same filters in
Richard Hector wrote:
That's still filtering outside the MUA, right? How does that differ, in
this context, from using procmail?
Seive is configured through the client. Procmail is configured through a
shell which isn't always present.
(and please don't cc me on list posts)
Sorry. I
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 03:00:35AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
It was the most modular of the set at the time (~4 months ago) but even
still it took me over an hour to a basic level of functionality.
I have to admit, I'm wondering what for you is a basic level of
functionality. Out of the box,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 01:52:22AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
And when you're getting mail from a source that doesn't have
procmail?
Use fetchmail to bring it to you.
It's stupid to make that a requirement yet this is a deficiency in mutt.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Please stop using tab, your messages are suffering tab damage.
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 04:33:15AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Sorry. I don't like CCs off list either and I try to make sure I
remove the CC when replying. I think that was the first
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 11:17:11AM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote:
Nope, you could also use a *good* MDA instead of Procmail. Which shows
why the modular Unix approach is much more powerful than any catch-all
application.
Thank you! (Even though
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 02:32:04AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Thorsten Haude wrote:
Why would I care? Most systems don't use Procmail on outgoing mails,
and even if they would, how would the receiver be affected?
Who said anything about outgoing? I said clearly, getting mail from a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 02:57:33AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Why? QMail, Sendmail, Exim and I believe Postfix all do not require an
MDA.
They do on multiuser systems, as far as I know. Why should only root
be able to filter their mail?
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 02:57:33AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
I assume that there is a MDA installed yes.
Why? QMail, Sendmail, Exim and I believe Postfix all do not require an
MDA. Furthermore only one, to my knowledge, does any filtering at all. Of
course those are only the major 4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 02:44:57AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Oh, I can get mutt to work but only with a few hours of work. The same
amount of work that would take me maybe 20m on a complette client.
The easy way to configure it is edit your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 03:00:35AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Even with dotfiles. The maintenance costs alone on keeping
everything up to date in the mutt method is a preclusion. BTW,
personally I settled on Wills .muttrc as a template. It was the
Hi,
sorry, I accidently replied to your private mail. Please sent me every
mail only once.
Thorsten
--
Just because you do not take an interest in politics
doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.
- Pericles
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-07 01:34):
Thorsten Haude wrote:
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-07 00:12):
IE, name me one case where someone would set reply-to where they would
not be able to also set From:.
Well, don't think inside a box. Not everyone use modern email
clients (which are
Hi,
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-07 04:47):
Paul Johnson wrote:
Many portable text communications devices can't set the From header
for themselves but can set reply-to. My cellphone is an example.
That's stretching it mighty thin. And I'd consider it broken.
Well whatever, but it's a fact
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 11:19:30PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I never could figure out how all these long threads get off topic so quick,
now I know!
People tend to call them as they seem them here. This is a good
thing: Core dumps are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 10:24:49PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
So if TB is supposedly better than Lookout, how does it differ? So
far, TB sounds identical to Outlook.
Uhm, let's see. Open Source, Bayesian filtering built in,
On February 07, 2004 10:33, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 10:24:49PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
So if TB is supposedly better than Lookout, how does it differ?
So far, TB sounds identical to Outlook.
Uhm, let's see. Open Source, Bayesian filtering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 12:09:10PM -0500, David P James wrote:
(2) more versatile filters (ability to pipe through or execute
external commands and to rewrite headers for example) then it would
pretty well be a real mail client.
That's what
On 2/6/04 8:59 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 12:29:54PM -0600, Dave's List Addy wrote:
Really? Why make it a hassle for the user? We run Debian, but in a
hosting/DNS/Server environment. I am sure many others aren't using their
Debian as a desktop. We use Mac OS X for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 11:29:22AM -0600, Dave's List Addy wrote:
Complain to your mail software's vendor. There is no excuse for any
MUA to lack reply-to-list in this day and age.
Well I am the dumb one here now :( I did some RTFM on our mail
On Friday 06 February 2004 8:33 pm, Paul Johnson wrote:
kmail threads like mutt does, I thought. Â Trying to thread on subject
is a horribly broken way to do it, not all lists are good enough to
not add a lame tag that wastes vital subject-line real-estate.
I think yer right I just know it does
Paul Johnson wrote:
OK, then why does TB still have more in common than OE than a real
mail client?
Depends on what you call a real mail client. I see TB having far more in
commong with Sylpheed-claws and kmail than lookout. Mutt, on the other hand,
is a nice tech demo but a crappy client.
Paul Johnson wrote:
That's what procmail is for, though.
No, procmail is what the tech demo mutt needs to act like a real mail
client. That's a deficiency in mutt.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 03:35:41PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
No, procmail is what the tech demo mutt needs to act like a real mail
client. That's a deficiency in mutt.
Why does an MUA need to be an MDA? Why waste the added resources
sorting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
You replied off-list to my attempt to help you on a public mailing
list. Read
http://www.linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=netiquette#offlist
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 07:04:51AM +, Joseph Jones wrote:
I don't even know what a freaking MUA
On Thursday 05 February 2004 10:12 am, Rico -mc- Gloeckner wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 05:58:59PM +, Joseph Jones wrote:
It really bugs me. I know this may seem unnecessary to some people, but
it wouldn't require much. All the other mailing lists I'm on set the
reply-to to the
On February 05, 2004 18:18, Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Tietjens wrote:
I hit the Reply button and sent this email with Thunderbird.
Apprently, it's smart enough to figure it out. :)
Then apparently you have one from the future (nope
Thunderbird/0.4RC1) as I know 0.3, 0.4 and now at least
On Friday February 6 at 06:39am
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
This has been bothering me for a while. I thought Mutt was good because
it supported threading, but I see a number of posts without references
set, which is a royal PITA for me. I use
On February 06, 2004 12:42, David P James wrote:
Anyway, from a TB user perspective the best way to deal with replying
to the list is the following:
Do not press reply to reply to a message; instead right-click on the
To: field of the message (which of course is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) and
Dale Welch wrote:
You have to consider who the majority of the people are and consider
that most things should be answered back to the list. Therefore a
small extra action by the replyer if he wants to send it back to the
original sender is preferred so that the new user will correctly reply
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 08:49:06AM -0800, Dale Welch wrote:
I email lists for the purpose of having the response on the list.
Please leave that up to the Sender and Replier. They are human, they
may decide what is appropriate. Some stupid[1] piece of software is not
able to detect that
David P James wrote:
He was posting via a newsgroup, that's why (if you ask me, TB screws
that up too).
SLRN is god. Learn it, love it, live it. Unless decoding binaries in
which case Pan is god. :)
Reply to sender (as in TB Mail, but not present in TB News)
Reply All (as in TB Mail and
On 2/6/04 12:06 PM, Michael L. Brownlow wrote:
You have to consider who the majority of the people are and consider
that most things should be answered back to the list. Therefore a
small extra action by the replyer if he wants to send it back to the
original sender is preferred so that the
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 12:42:39PM -0500 or thereabouts, David P James wrote:
[snip]
In newsgroup mode, TB (and MozMail) treat Reply to mean reply to group.
You can't easily reply to just the sender in a newsgroup via email with
TB (you have to reply-all and delete the group). This is
Dave's List Addy wrote:
So is Debian not about accommodating the new user? Or is this strictly for
the good old boys?
Good ol' boys. Paradoxaly they won't close down the list to subscribers
only because of newbs. Go fig.
BTW, a while back I was right there with ya in regards to
Stephen wrote:
Well, I have TB 0.5a Jan 28 2004. The reply to sender works in newsgroup
mode.
You'll note this is a mailing list, not a newsgroup.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard
On February 06, 2004 13:36, Stephen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 12:42:39PM -0500 or thereabouts, David P
James wrote:
[snip]
In newsgroup mode, TB (and MozMail) treat Reply to mean reply to
group. You can't easily reply to just the sender in a newsgroup via
email with TB (you have to
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 11:23:53AM -0800 or thereabouts, Steve Lamb wrote:
Stephen wrote:
Well, I have TB 0.5a Jan 28 2004. The reply to sender works in newsgroup
mode.
You'll note this is a mailing list, not a newsgroup.
Yes -- I'm responding to the fella that said reply-sender didn't
Stephen wrote:
Yes -- I'm responding to the fella that said reply-sender didn't work as
described in newsmode, with TBird. ;)
Whoops, my mistake. Lemme, uh, just stand over here outta the way. :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 02:43:10PM -0500 or thereabouts, David P James wrote:
Well, I have TB 0.5a Jan 28 2004. The reply to sender works in
newsgroup mode.
Really? Pressing the Reply button sends it to the sender and not the
newsgroup?
I said 'reply to sender'. It's a simple matter of
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 08:49:06AM -0800, Dale Welch wrote:
and if you want to claim you can use rules to re-write the headers to do what
you want... then fine lets have it default to the standard of reply to the
list and you set your favorite program to rewrite the headers to let you
Richard Hector wrote:
The trouble is, you can't. If the list has changed the Reply-to header,
it's thrown away what was there before. You could fall back to the From
or Sender header, but that might not be where the sender reads their
mail. They may have set Reply-to for a good reason.
Funny
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 03:12:09PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
IE, name me one case where someone would set reply-to where they would
not be able to also set From:. I can't think of a single modern email
client out of early development where this isn't the case. I can't think
of one in
Nano Nano wrote:
From: Your Boss
Reply-To: His Secretary
From: Your Boss
CC: His Secretary
S/he then drops him off the CC upon further correspondence. And
considering it would be good to let the delegee know the delegation is
coming... :P
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your
Hi,
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-07 00:12):
IE, name me one case where someone would set reply-to where they would
not be able to also set From:. I can't think of a single modern email
client out of early development where this isn't the case. I can't think
of one in the past decade going
On Friday 06 February 2004 11:30 am, Johann Koenig wrote:
This has been bothering me for a while. I thought Mutt was good because
it supported threading, but I see a number of posts without references
set, which is a royal PITA for me. I use Sylpheed-Claws, which has
awesome support for
Thorsten Haude wrote:
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-07 00:12):
IE, name me one case where someone would set reply-to where they would
not be able to also set From:.
Well, don't think inside a box. Not everyone use modern email
clients (which are curiously not required to include either RFC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 12:30:41PM -0500, Johann Koenig wrote:
So, I ask: is this because mutt actually does *not* use In-reply-to or
because some mutt users are (un)intentionally breaking threading?
No, it uses In-reply-to. Sounds like a personal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 06:29:19PM -0600, Brad Sims wrote:
Hrm Kmail does theading based on subject I /think/. I know it looks
mighty nice at any rate.
kmail threads like mutt does, I thought. Trying to thread on subject
is a horribly broken way
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 02:43:10PM -0500, David P James wrote:
Really? Pressing the Reply button sends it to the sender and not the
newsgroup?
That's normal for NUAs. If you want to reply to the newsgroup, you
use followup, not reply.
Still, TB
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 08:49:06AM -0800, Dale Welch wrote:
You have to consider who the majority of the people are and consider
that most things should be answered back to the list. Therefore a
small extra action by the replyer if he wants to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 12:06:28PM -0600, Michael L. Brownlow wrote:
I vote to keep it the way it is on the principle of least embarassment.
Though just like voting for president, it doesn't matter[1]. The
listmaster got it right years ago when it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 12:29:54PM -0600, Dave's List Addy wrote:
Really? Why make it a hassle for the user? We run Debian, but in a
hosting/DNS/Server environment. I am sure many others aren't using their
Debian as a desktop. We use Mac OS X for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 03:12:09PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
IE, name me one case where someone would set reply-to where they would
not be able to also set From:.
At my old job, I couldn't. Stupid Notus Jokes...
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 04:01:52PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Nano Nano wrote:
From: Your Boss
Reply-To: His Secretary
From: Your Boss
CC: His Secretary
S/he then drops him off the CC upon further correspondence. And
considering it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 04:34:03PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
You mean like my Axim which has its From: set to my home address? The
same address which has an extension on it which, when added, will send to
my PDA in cases of emergency?
Many
Paul Johnson wrote:
From: Your Boss
Reply-To: His secretary
BCC: His secretary
Normally it's more like Boss talks to secretary whom in turn emails
employee. We can keep doing this all day.
Oh, fun fact. I worked in a national ISP where both the director of my
department and manager of
Paul Johnson wrote:
Many portable text communications devices can't set the From header
for themselves but can set reply-to. My cellphone is an example.
That's stretching it mighty thin. And I'd consider it broken.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 07:46:56PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Oh, fun fact. I worked in a national ISP where both the director of my
department and manager of my group had the same administrative assistant.
You'd think that in a national ISP,
On February 06, 2004 21:39, Paul Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 02:43:10PM -0500, David P James wrote:
Really? Pressing the Reply button sends it to the sender and not
the newsgroup?
That's normal for NUAs. If you want to reply to
Paul Johnson wrote:
You may be unique in this. Many other people have posted many
examples of reply-to being used legitimately.
No, they have not. They have posted examples how how it might be used in
some fantasy world. Here in te real world there was only one real-world
example, yours.
David P James wrote:
As an aside, are there any mailers for Windows that have a reply-list
button/function? Eudora? Pegasus? The Bat? I've not used them so I
really don't know but to my knowledge none of them do.
IIRC both TheBat! and later versions of PMMail do. I do not think Eudora
or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 08:55:19PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
One person's first hand experience and who said anything about tech
support?
My prior job was working tech support. Given that I have a job
interview next week to do tech support
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 11:52:49PM -0500, David P James wrote:
On February 06, 2004 21:39, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 02:43:10PM -0500, David P James wrote:
Really? Pressing the Reply button sends it to the sender and not
the
Paul Johnson wrote:
So if TB is supposedly better than Lookout, how does it differ? So
far, TB sounds identical to Outlook.
Uhm, let's see. Open Source, Bayesian filtering built in, decent plugin
support, awesome IMAP support, doesn't compose HTML mail by default, I've
never seen TB try to
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 06:52:31PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 12:06:28PM -0600, Michael L. Brownlow wrote:
I vote to keep it the way it is on the principle of least embarassment.
snip
[1] Though for different reasons...the electoral college is not
obligated to
It really bugs me. I know this may seem unnecessary to some people, but
it wouldn't require much. All the other mailing lists I'm on set the
reply-to to the address of the mailing list, apart from this list.
Joe (forever the newbie)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 05:58:59PM +, Joseph Jones wrote:
It really bugs me. I know this may seem unnecessary to some people, but
it wouldn't require much. All the other mailing lists I'm on set the
reply-to to the address of the mailing list, apart from this list.
try google: 'reply-to
Rico -mc- Gloeckner wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 05:58:59PM +, Joseph Jones wrote:
It really bugs me. I know this may seem unnecessary to some people, but
it wouldn't require much. All the other mailing lists I'm on set the
reply-to to the address of the mailing list, apart from this
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 06:18:29PM +, Joseph Jones wrote:
Hopefully someone'll make an extension for Thunderbird to handle it.
Whilst rereading the document once again, i noticed that for example
mutt has three functionalities:
- (r)eply - reply to reply-to or author
- (l)ist reply
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
