Ok, Ed I understand that you were trying to eliminate double messages when one would hit reply all.
Fine. It is a bit more work for individual replies, but hey if the majority prefers to do so, I am for it. Hartmut From: Ed Burkhead Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 1:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Raising the tail: Two more questions Hartmut wrote: > I don't like the change to the forum you did. I used to be > able to reply selectively, now any attempt will end in an > open discussion. > > Why did we do this change? Solving what problem? Hartmut, The change to the forum operation made the "Reply To" address be the forum instead of the individual who sent the message. In an environment where virtually all messages should go to the forum, that works well. However, if many of us make a lot of replies to individuals, then this gets to be a pain as it's harder to address the response to the individual. For me, if someone asks a question and it seems important to get the answer to them quickly, I have tended to send the response to both the individual and the forum. If the response was something that did not need to go to the forum at all, I simply hit reply and sent it to the individual. With this system, I have to double click on the person's name in the address line, copy it from the box that pops up, then paste it into my response. It boils down to: Are virtually all messages sent to the forum or do you send a large proportion of messages to an individual. In the poll, 2/3rds preferred having the <Reply> ("Reply To") go to the forum not the individual. In a few days, I'll post a poll asking how the change is working for people and we'll see if the majority want to keep this method or change back. Ed
