Ken Coar wrote:
> Bill Freeman wrote:
> >
> > Ken Coar writes:
> > > All it will mean to me is that after about the second reply that
> > > I post that goes only to the sender, I won't reply to *any* GNHLUG
> > > list messages any more. I get multi-MB of mail every single
> > > blessed day, and there's far too much of it to which I *can't*
> > > 'reply-to-all' for me to change my finger pattern.
> >
> > Now *that's* a broken MUA. A "reply-to-all" command (which
> > even BSD mail has: the "r" command) should include as recipients all
> > of the "To:" addresseses from the original message, which, for list
> > mail, always includes [EMAIL PROTECTED], and even all of the "Cc:"
> > addresses.
>
> What aspect do you consider broken? I don't think you understood
> my point -- it's having to do one-or-the-other instead of the
> same-for-all that's the problem for me, which isn't a technology
> issue.
Sorry. I misread your original post. The MUA isn't broken
then.
On the other hand, it now seems to me that you are saying that
a bunch of us should type lots of extra characters so that you can
avoid a tiny difference between the way you respond publicly versus
the way you respond privately. I have no sympathy.
Bill
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
