On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 09:19 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote: > David McGlone wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:49 +0200, Peter Lind wrote: > >> On 21 April 2010 14:38, Hans Åhlin <ahlin.h...@kronan-net.com> wrote: > >>> Why change the way that has been around for years and adopted by > >>> multiple e-mail lists? > >>> It feels like it's more problem to change the way for thousands of > >>> users just to satisfy a couple of few. > >> David was venting based on a discussion in another thread. I'm pretty > >> sure he knows about the option to reply-all - that's part of the > >> reason for venting (it sends multiple emails instead of just the one > >> needed). The optimal scenario is to: 1) be able to quickly respond to > >> the list, as that's the normal action you want to do and 2) not spam > >> people with several emails for no reason (i.e. avoid replying to the > >> OP AND the list). > > > > Exactly. I also feel bad for those who have to pay to download per Mb, > > GB, etc. > > > > It's pitiful that once I send this E-Mail, Peter and Hans both will get > > 2 of the exact messages. > > I thought you just wanted to know why it is the way it is? Now you're > passing judgement.
I'm not passing judgment, It just saddens me that I have to send multiple messages and this isn't because of anyone, it's because of my lack of knowledge on how to reply to lists that are set up in this way. But I think the "reply to list" like ash suggested solves the multiples problem. And on a positive note, If I wouldn't have brought this discussion up, I would have never known. Pretty sure I do now. -- Blessings, David M. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php