Grep ignored with :
Si wibbled at grep :
No. When you reply-all it replies to the sender *AND* the list. So the
sender gets two copies of everything. Which is just fricking irritating
*AND* a waste of bandwidth.
la la la la *has hands over ears* i cant here you, la la la la
Worse than
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:38:31PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
la la la la *has hands over ears* i cant here you, la la la la
The issue of millions-of-CCs needs to be addressed by anyone
putting together a pro-reply-to: sender argument. Using procmail
is *not* the right answer, neither is
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 02:11:02PM -0600, Paul Makepeace wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:38:31PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
la la la la *has hands over ears* i cant here you, la la la la
The issue of millions-of-CCs needs to be addressed by anyone
putting together a pro-reply-to:
On Jan 22, 3:33pm, Andy Wardley wrote:
Please consider yourself emailed.
Damn, damn, damn!
OK, it was my stupid mistake that I didn't check the headers before I
clicked send, but I can't help thinking that the default Reply-to
header should be to the sender, not the entire group.
And I also
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:52:08PM +, DJ Adams wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:47:03PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change
too late ;)
the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to?
No no! Please
Andy Wardley wrote:
So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change
the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to?
rant
I have arguments with Leon about this. He usually quotes 'Reply To
munging considered harmful'
* at 22/01 16:22 + Simon Wistow said:
Andy Wardley wrote:
So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change
the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to?
rant
I have arguments with Leon about this. He usually quotes 'Reply To
munging
* Simon Wistow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Andy Wardley wrote:
So without wishing to start another holy war, is it possible to change
the mailing list configuration to have a more sensible default Reply-to?
rant
I have arguments with Leon about this. He usually quotes 'Reply To
munging
* Simon Wistow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Greg McCarroll wrote:
reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing,
it means when you reply to a message you reply to author of
that message, when you reply-all you reply to all
No. When you reply-all it replies to the
* at 22/01 16:33 + Greg McCarroll said:
* Struan Donald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
actually mutt has cool mailing list functions in that you can define a
mailing list in the config and then l (or L, i forget) replies to the
list rather than the person.
not that i want this to
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:26:32PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing,
it means when you reply to a message you reply to author of
that message, when you reply-all you reply to all
trying...to...resist...AARGH!
No no no!
You're on a
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:33:33PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
war implies a large struggle, this would be more like a 5 second
knockout - everyone knows mutt is the one true mail client
Now _that_ is something I can agree with g
dj
happy just to have realised he'll be able to make next
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:33:34PM +, Simon Wistow wrote:
Greg McCarroll wrote:
reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing,
it means when you reply to a message you reply to author of
that message, when you reply-all you reply to all
No. When you reply-all it replies
i'm ignoring all your points
reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing,
it means when you reply to a message you reply to author of
that message, when you reply-all you reply to all
its just the right thing
so there
Define sender then? the mailing list
14 matches
Mail list logo
