Start a new one Cade... Kev.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Cade Cairns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:24 AM Subject: Re: (clug-talk) some quick notes SEBASTIEN YOU SPELLED SOPHISTICATED WRONG PLEASE CHECK THE RFC AND THEN BLAME MICROSOFT BUT PLEASE CALL IT MICRO$OFT!! guys can this thread please end? argh. On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, [ISO-8859-1] S�bastien Taylor wrote: > Maybe his mail client is "sofisticated" enough to see that both > emails are the same ;-) > > Ian Bruseker a �crit: > > You aren't getting two replies? Odd. Cause when I hit reply, there are > > indeed two email addresses that the email (even this one that I type right > > now) go to - the CLUG talk list address, and your calpc address. If you > > aren't actually getting two copies of this email, then you either don't > > actually read all your email, or have some filter magic going on. :-) > > > > Ian > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: David J. Bourassa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >>Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 8:16 PM > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: Re: (clug-talk) some quick notes > >> > >> > >>Just to correct you, Ian. I'm not getting two replies, like Aaron. > >>Just the one, thank you very much. My reply-to address is different > >>than my proper email address because I use an alias for my everyday > >>email address. That way, if I ever change ISP's, I only have to change > >>the alias' redirection. > >> > >>As to Aarons' situation, I'm probably off the mark there, as I was only > >>thinking aloud that you might have been hitting the reply to all button > >>instead of the normal "reply" button. My apologies, mea culpa, etc. > >> > >>Ian Bruseker wrote: > >> > >>>Absolutely positive. I do know how to work a mouse. ;-) > >>> > >>>Huh, well, I was mistaken about one thing. Aaron isn't the > >> > >>only one on the > >> > >>>list who gets two replies - you do too. > >>> > >>>Let me hypothesize: Both of you have explicitly set Reply To in > >> > >>your email > >> > >>>program settings. Am I correct? Check the email headers. All > >> > >>the answers > >> > >>>are there. There are 2 Reply-To entries in the headers of each > >> > >>email you > >> > >>>guys send out, one generated by your MUA, one generated by the > >> > >>mailing list > >> > >>>software. Reply-to is only really intended for use when you > >> > >>send from one > >> > >>>email address, but expect the reply to go to a different address. Since > >>>both of you seem to send and receive from the same address, you don't > >>>actually need to set that. Furthermore, the CLUG mailing list software > >>>(more specifically, the list admin, whoever you are, has set it > >> > >>up this way) > >> > >>>does the extra magic of adding a reply-to entry for the list as > >> > >>the email > >> > >>>passes through (this is known as "Reply-to Munging", see link below), to > >>>make sure conversations stay on the list, where one expects > >> > >>them to be. It > >> > >>>does not, however, remove any existing reply-to entries, as a > >> > >>courtesy to > >> > >>>the sender, to respect their settings. Since you guys have > >> > >>explicitly set > >> > >>>it, there are two reply-to's, so Outlook is putting both those > >> > >>address in > >> > >>>the To: line of any reply. That doesn't seem to be what you want, so I > >>>suggest you unset Reply-to, since you don't actually need it to be set. > >>> > >>>(Don't blame Outlook, by the way, it's only doing its job - two reply-to > >>>headers, two To: addresses. If you want to blame the user for not > >>>explicitly deleting your personal email address from every > >> > >>reply they want > >> > >>>to send to the list, go ahead, but they shouldn't have to do it > >> > >>in the first > >> > >>>place.) > >>> > >>>Note that if the mailing list software did not set reply-to, > >> > >>and since you > >> > >>>guys explicitly do set reply-to, then every reply to you would > >> > >>instantly go > >> > >>>off-list. > >>> > >>>For the definitive argument for why reply-to munging is a bad > >> > >>thing, read > >> > >>>http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html But if you > >> > >>agree with the > >> > >>>positions stated in that document, take it up with the list > >> > >>admin, not with > >> > >>>the list users. > >>> > >>>Personally, I don't care which way it's set. Sometimes I take > >> > >>the time to > >> > >>>delete the extra addresses, sometimes I don't, but if you get > >> > >>two replies > >> > >>>from me, you have no one to blame but yourself and the list admin. ;-) > >>> > >>>Ian > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>From: David J. Bourassa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >>>>Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 12:00 PM > >>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>Subject: Re: (clug-talk) some quick notes > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>I don't know Ian. Are you sure you're not hitting the "Reply to All > >>>>button" ? Mine doesn't work that way (Mozilla). > >>>> > >>>>Ian Bruseker wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Aaron, > >>>>> > >>>>>Take a look at the "To:" line. Notice it has both the clug > >>>>>email and your > >>>>>email address? I hit "Reply", and that's what I got as reply to email > >>>>>addresses. No other person on this list has that issue. I think the > >>>>>problem is at your end. Check your email program settings, > >>>> > >>the issue is > >> > >>>>>probably there. > >>>>> > >>>>>Ian > >>>> > >>>>-- > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> Dave Bourassa at > >>>> http://members.shaw.ca/djb.enterprises/ > >>>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >>-- > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Dave Bourassa at > >> http://members.shaw.ca/djb.enterprises/ > >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
