> > Not that I actually believe it will ever happen, but I think > > it ought to be > > changed by whomever maintains the list currently. When I > > click "Reply to > > Sender" I have in mind that I am replying *to the sender*. > > > > Further, you would think that replying to "All" would send > > one to the list, > > and one to the sender. But it doesn't happen that way; it > > sends *two* back > > to the list. > > Most mail-readers are not designed with lists in mind. On a list, you generally WANT the reply to go to the list to generate more discussion. It would be nice if there were a reply-to-sender button, but you can always reply-to-all and delete one of the addresses. For reply-to-all a copy should definitely go to both the list and the original poster. If the list isn't doing that now, it should be set that way, and if it can't I'd consider it broken.
---- I understand your thoughts on this... However... (I apologize in advance for the following not being related even remotely to Compact Macs, though it *is* related 100% completely and totally to the list itself...) In Outlook for Winblows if you right-click on a message title it brings up a list of options you can choose from. One is "Reply to SENDER" and the other is "Reply to ALL", along with some other unrelated commands. This is the exact wording Outlook uses. Like I said, as far as I'm concered, clicking "Reply to Sender", by definition, ought to *reply to the sender*-- not the list. Clicking "Reply to All" ought to send out a copy to the list *AND* a copy to the original sender. Neither of these options work this way with any of these LEM lists. Replying to Sender sends your message back as a public posting to the list. Replying to All sends *TWO COPIES* of your message back to the list as public postings. Now the problem isn't simply Outlook or simply the list, but a combination of problems with both and how the two interact together. There are at least three fields in an email header that can be used to determine the "origin" of any particular message. The "From:" field, the "Sender:" field, and finally the "Reply-To:" field. I suppose the "Reply-To:" field doesn't really have to have anything to do with the origin of the message, but that's not the point I'm making here... The point is Outlook's "Reply to Sender" function is somewhat broken because it does *NOT* in fact reply to the address indicated by the "Sender:" field, as one would infer by the name of the command, but to the address indicated in the "Reply-To:" field! Make sense? Only if you ignore the fact that the name of the command is "Reply to SENDER". The "Reply to All" function is also broken because it does *NOT* reply to all three addresses listed in the aforementioned fields. It only replies to the addresses present in the "Reply-To:" field and the "Sender:" field-- completely *ignoring* the "From:" field. This all wouldn't be so bad, aside from Microsoft's incorrect use of vocabulary, except the LEM lists screw things up even more at this point. The LEM lists set the "Sender:" field *and* the "Reply-To:" field to reflect the respective list's address, and sets only the "From:" field to reflect the actual sender's address. So by replying to the "sender" we actually get a message that goes back to the "reply-to" recipient, in this case the list. And by replying to "all" we get a message that goes back to the "reply-to" recipient as well as the "sender", which in this case makes *two* messages back to the list. Anyway, to cut to the chase, *both* the list server program as well as Outlook are broken. Although ideal, there is little chance Microsoft will ever fix the "reply to Sender" function to actually reply to the "Sender:" field or even, at least, change the wording of the "Reply to Sender" command to "Reply" or "Reply to message". The next logical step here would be to fix the list server program. The easiest way to do this would be to have the "Reply-To" field get set, not to the list's address, but to the same address that is identified in the "From:" field: the original poster. Then have only the "Sender:" field get set to the list's address. This way, "Reply to Sender" will actually reply to the sender and "Reply to All" will actually reply to all. Again, I apologize from treading so far from compact Macs but this is something I feel is an issue that ought to be looked at by someone with access to the list server program. -Nat -- Compact Macs is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/>. Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> Compact Macs list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/compact.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive:<http://www.mail-archive.com/compact.macs%40mail.maclaunch.com/> --------------------------------------------------------------- >The Think Different Store http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
