Re: [css-d] Question about the list
Adam Kuehn wrote: Scott Glasgow wrote: If I hit Reply All, it does go to the list, but sends a separate copy to the sender (which can be annoying to the recipient, I would imagine). I checked again in my other lists, and Reply does indeed send to the list, not the sender. Is this something in the way OE is configured (if so, why just this list?), or the way the list is configured, or have I just happened to reply to senders who have their Reply To set, or what? This page was written for you: http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=CssDiscussListHeaders. In addition, if you go to the CSS website and choose the options page http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d/, you can sign in and edit some list parameters. Just choose the Edit Options button, after entering your address and password. One of the options on the next page (fifth down on the right side) is Avoid duplicate copies of messages? Set this to Yes if you are one of those people who would be annoyed by getting both a list copy and a personal copy of a Reply To All message. Now all should be right with the world. Presented as a public service, I do not have a problem with this decision by the list moderators. I do, however, wonder why this was not included in what seems to be the list guidelines (the very definite ground rules) or any other of the information which I assiduously read whule subscribing. I am not a newbie to the Web, nor to online communications, having watched lines of text being spelled out letter by letter at 300 baud back in 1983 on a character-mode-only 9 inch amber monochrome screen. The Web did not exist then, nor did the Internet in the sense that we use the term today. Sysops were gods, Telix was the whip (well, not quite yet, back then), and knowing your AT commands and how to set up your modem separated the men from the wannabes. Please do not patronize me. A simple reply (using Reply and not Reply All) would have sufficed. I don't need all should be right with the world (not accurate in any event because it depends upon concrete action by every individual member to avoid duplicate messages) or public service ( if it's so public, why not put it in the information presented to all subscribers during the process of subscription?). I value this list, a great deal. The information available here is both unique and inestimably valuable, and I do not wish to be administratively unsubscribed. I have endeavored in this response to adhere to the guidelines given in the above-mentioned reference. My hope is that the administrators will understand that those of us who subscribe to multiple lists, all of which use the Reply To munging described in your links, are somewhat nonplussed when this list behaves differently than the way to which we have become accustomed. Since it is clearly your wish that this is the way it should be, I ask only that you provide this information to subscribers of the list in a manner which does not result in an after the fact admonishment of the list users. I remain, Your most humble servant, Scott Glasgow __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Question about the list - Public apology
Scott Glasgow wrote: Adam Kuehn wrote: Scott Glasgow wrote: If I hit Reply All, it does go to the list, but sends a separate copy to the sender (which can be annoying to the recipient, I would imagine). [...] This page was written for you: http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=CssDiscussListHeaders.[...] I do not have a problem with this decision by the list moderators. I do, however, wonder why this was not included in what seems to be the list guidelines (the very definite ground rules) or any other of the information which I assiduously read whule subscribing. Perhaps it should be. It is definitely a FAQ, and as such we have put it on the Wiki, a link to which appears in the footer of every list message. But since this does come up from time to time, perhaps it needs to be more prominent. Thank you for the suggestion. I am not a newbie to the Web, nor to online communications, having watched lines of text being spelled out letter by letter at 300 baud back in 1983 on a character-mode-only 9 inch amber monochrome screen. Dang, you've got me beat. My first home modem was 2400 baud, and I could get 1200 baud on the school modems. I remember having to use AT commands, too, and I thank the software gods that I no longer have to remember what a DIP switch is. Please do not patronize me. A simple reply (using Reply and not Reply All) would have sufficed. I don't need all should be right with the world (not accurate in any event because it depends upon concrete action by every individual member to avoid duplicate messages) or public service ( if it's so public, why not put it in the information presented to all subscribers during the process of subscription?). But here I do sincerely apologize. I intended neither to patronize, nor offend. I've been on lists that do Reply-To both ways, and it can be disconcerting that this parameter varies from list to list. I was making an attempt to be light-hearted about this sometimes-annoying problem, but clearly the effort failed. I am sorry. I did, however, present that post as a public service. As I mentioned, this comes up from time-to-time, and I felt that a post from a moderator which reviewed the subject (especially including the part about avoiding duplicates) would be a good thing. There is a sharp divide as to whether or not our Reply-To policy is desirable, and I wanted to make sure that those who feel inconvenienced by it were reminded of a way we have to minimize some of the perceived negative impact you mentioned in your original post. I value this list, a great deal. The information available here is both unique and inestimably valuable, and I do not wish to be administratively unsubscribed. You are in no danger of that, certainly. (I believe it has happened exactly one time in the entire history of this list, thanks to the very high quality of our list members.) We do value your contributions, and I hope you can forgive the rantings of an old web denizen which were in no way intended as an admonishment. I look forward to reading your posts. Sincerely, -- -Adam Kuehn CSS-D List Moderator __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Question about the list - Public apology
Thank you for your most gracious response, Adam. I am really enjoying the list and am constantly impressed with the knowledge and experience of the participants. My subfolders for saving messages containing tips, techniques, examples, etc. are growing like Topsy, and I anticipate learning a great deal more from the list, and maybe even tossing in a little something myself now and then. ;-) Cheers, Scott The one serious conviction that a man should have is that nothing is to be taken too seriously. - Samuel Butler __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Question about the list
On (29/08/05 18:11), Scott Glasgow wrote: Is this something in the way OE is configured (if so, why just this list?), or the way the list is configured, or have I just happened to reply to senders who have their Reply To set, or what? It's not about you, but about the way the list is configured. Happened to me once too, then i realize *this* list doesn't work with the reply function. I don't know how to solve this in OE, i'm under Linux and with mutt all I have to do is to remember to use the reply to list instead of the reply to sender. bye ;) -- curson Fear is the mind killer, fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Novità per telefonare risparmiando: Email.it Phone Card, clicca e scopri i vantaggi Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2689d=30-8 __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Question about the list
From: Scott Glasgow [EMAIL PROTECTED] I had hit Reply, as I do in all my other lists, but instead of picking up the list address OE picked up the sender's address. If I hit Reply All, it does go to the list, but sends a separate copy to the sender (which can be annoying to the recipient, I would imagine). Is this something in the way OE is configured (if so, why just this list?), or the way the list is configured, or have I just happened to reply to senders who have their Reply To set, or what? The list is indeed configured to require Reply All in order to send a reply to the list. See the following wiki page for more information. http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=CssDiscussListHeaders Anyone who does not want to receive duplicate copies of a message can edit that in their subscriber options page - http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d (then log in) In the right column (Your css-d Option Settings) locate the following question and select the appropriate response for you. Avoid duplicate copies of messages? You yourself can delete the additional names after you have clicked on Reply All, if you only want to send your reply to the list. Hope that helps, ~holly __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Question about the list
Scott Glasgow wrote: I wondered why my last few messages had not appeared on the list, so I went into Sent Items and looked and realized that they had gone to the original posters. I had hit Reply, as I do in all my other lists, but instead of picking up the list address OE picked up the sender's address. If I hit Reply All, it does go to the list, but sends a separate copy to the sender (which can be annoying to the recipient, I would imagine). I checked again in my other lists, and Reply does indeed send to the list, not the sender. Is this something in the way OE is configured (if so, why just this list?), or the way the list is configured, or have I just happened to reply to senders who have their Reply To set, or what? These sum the issues: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html The list mom has chosen harmful. -- Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? Matthew 6:27 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
