[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

Well - that's useful - I didn't know that. This is checking whether it works. Original Message From: howardpos...@ca.rr.com Date: 06/09/2017 9:43 To: "LutList"<lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Subj: [LUTE] Re: Shorter emails And while we’re on protocol, if you hit “reply all” an

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

> On Sep 6, 2017, at 3:07 AM, Ralf Mattes wrote: > > > Am Mittwoch, 06. September 2017 11:43 CEST, howard posner > schrieb: > >> And while we’re on protocol, if you hit “reply all” and then eliminate all >> the addresses other than the list’s,

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

Am Mittwoch, 06. September 2017 11:43 CEST, howard posner schrieb: > And while we’re on protocol, if you hit “reply all” and then eliminate all > the addresses other than the list’s, the other listers don’t get your message > more than once. That problem is easy

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

And while we’re on protocol, if you hit “reply all” and then eliminate all the addresses other than the list’s, the other listers don’t get your message more than once. > On Sep 6, 2017, at 12:44 AM, mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > > I agree with Martyn too. We have had this discussion about

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

Am Mittwoch, 06. September 2017 10:32 CEST, Matthew Daillie schrieb: > Isn't there a cost issue too regarding server storage space? Given the low price of todays harddisks that price is neglectible. But there _is_ a cost factor: I used to read my mail on my

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

Isn't there a cost issue too regarding server storage space? Best, Matthew > On Sep 6, 2017, at 0:40, "G. C." wrote: > > Dear lutelist, > is there a way to remove all those endless quotings of earlier mails in > the string, as well as the (also) endless links that have

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

: 06/09/2017 7:21 To: "Lute net"<lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Subj: [LUTE] Re: Shorter emails As always, I agree with Martyn. > On Sep 6, 2017, at 12:10 AM, Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmartyn@cs. dartmouth.edu> wrote: > > The advantage of including all (or most) emails

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

As always, I agree with Martyn. > On Sep 6, 2017, at 12:10 AM, Martyn Hodgson > wrote: > > The advantage of including all (or most) emails in a thread is that if > one wishes to be reminded of previous matters discussed in the thread, > it easy to simply

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

Of course it's perfectly possible to limit the length of emails but who is to act as censor? Some topics may need greater length than others. The advantage of including all (or most) emails in a thread is that if one wishes to be reminded of previous matters discussed in the thread,

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

It is considered basic courtesy (or was). Stephen Fryer On 2017-09-05 6:44 PM, Ed Durbrow wrote: On Sep 6, 2017, at 7:40 AM, G. C. wrote: Is there no way to get the messages slimmer? Sure. Just as I have trimmed your message, every individual can cut out unnecessary

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

People could simply edit out the extraneous material when replying.  It isn't difficult. Stephen Fryer On 2017-09-05 4:26 PM, G. C. wrote: No, Please, Wayne, that would be to destroy eventually long, but interesting mails, and would infringe. It is not the size, its the

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

On Sep 6, 2017, at 7:40 AM, G. C. wrote: > Is there no way to get the messages slimmer? Sure. Just as I have trimmed your message, every individual can cut out unnecessary repetition of previous emails. I’m with you. Ed Durbrow Saitama, Japan

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

No, Please, Wayne, that would be to destroy eventually long, but interesting mails, and would infringe. It is not the size, its the redundancy I'm talking about, which could perhaps somehow be reduced, so the postings become easier to scan -- To get on or off this list see list