> > You'll have to learn to adjust then I guess. And do those 2k really
> > matter? Come on... Just get a good mailer that defaults to
> > "Reply-All"
> > (like, mutt, pine, pcpine)
>
> Some of us don't have the choice -- we work in a corporate or institutional
> environment where the decision
e [LSS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Derick Rethans'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 3:08 AM
Subject: RE: [PHP] php-general as REPLY TO
-Original Message-
From: Derick Rethans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
have a web based email service.
>
> You ALWAYS have choices... :)
>
> Jim Lucas
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ford, Mike [LSS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'Derick Rethans'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EM
uot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 3:08 AM
Subject: RE: [PHP] php-general as REPLY TO
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Derick Rethans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 30 June 2003 22:47
> >
> > On Mon, 30 Jun
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Wong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 01 July 2003 12:55
>
> On Tuesday 01 July 2003 18:08, Ford, Mike [LSS] wrote:
>
Watch your quoting attributions -- I didn't say this first bit, Derick did:
> > > You'll have to learn to adjust then I guess. And do
On Tuesday 01 July 2003 18:08, Ford, Mike [LSS] wrote:
> > You'll have to learn to adjust then I guess. And do those 2k really
> > matter? Come on... Just get a good mailer that defaults to
> > "Reply-All"
> > (like, mutt, pine, pcpine)
>
> Some of us don't have the choice -- we work in a corpora
> -Original Message-
> From: Derick Rethans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 30 June 2003 22:47
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Doug Essinger-Hileman wrote:
>
> > Having said this, I suspect that you and I will continue to
> disagree,
> > which is perfectly okay. If this list changes the defa
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, John Manko wrote:
> >Keep in mind that many people post without being subscribed to the list,
>
> This is false. In fact, I tried sending a message to the list from another account
> that wasn't subscribed, and I got a reply stating the following:
>
> Because you are not sub
Keep in mind that many people post without being subscribed to the list,
This is false. In fact, I tried sending a message to the list from another account that wasn't subscribed, and I got a reply stating the following:
Because you are not subscribed to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
using the email addres
If snipping everything is v. rude, then I apologize.
Please, everyone, get a grip -- how difficult is it to right click and
select "Reply to All"? And if one has to cut and paste the "php-general ...
" form cc: to to:, does it take that much time?
More likely, if you start typing "php-" it aut
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 4:47 PM
To: Doug Essinger-Hileman
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PHP] php-general as REPLY TO
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Doug Essinger-Hileman wrote:
> Having said this, I suspect that you and I will continue to disagree,
> which is perfect
Guys, this will not change. Look back through the archives. It has been
discussed a couple of times. If you don't like it, unsubscribe. Sorry to
be blunt, but this is a waste of bandwidth.
Keep in mind that many people post without being subscribed to the list,
so only sending a reply to the l
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Doug Essinger-Hileman wrote:
> Having said this, I suspect that you and I will continue to disagree,
> which is perfectly okay. If this list changes the default I will be
> happy. If it doesn't, I will learn to adjust. One request I make is
> that folk, including you, Deric
On 30 Jun 2003 at 22:34, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > I disagree with you Derick. In many (most? all?) programs, the
> > reply- all function will send an email back to the list **and** one
> > to the author. This wastes bandwidth needlessly, in my opinion. I
> > receive the messages to the list and d
>I just read this FAQ, and I still don't see a good reason why not to
>change the REPLY-TO. The primary reason offered is that it will prevent
>people from sending messages in private, but that is not really the case
>(the FROM field will still contain the sender's address and it can simply
>be cu
I just read this FAQ, and I still don't see a good
reason why not to change the REPLY-TO. The primary
reason offered is that it will prevent people from
sending messages in private, but that is not really
the case (the FROM field will still contain the
sender's address and it can simply be cut & p
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Doug Essinger-Hileman wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2003 at 21:23, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > > I'm wondering why the listed "Reply To" address is not
> > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> > > Thing would be so much easier to just reply than cut-n-paste when
> > > reply to the entire list on a
On 30 Jun 2003 at 21:23, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > I'm wondering why the listed "Reply To" address is not
> > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> > Thing would be so much easier to just reply than cut-n-paste when
> > reply to the entire list on a subject (which is the norm).
>
> That's an evil thing, and mi
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, John Manko wrote:
> I'm wondering why the listed "Reply To" address is not
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> Thing would be so much easier to just reply than cut-n-paste when reply
> to the entire list on a subject (which is the norm).
That's an evil thing, and misusing e-mail. E-ma
>>> John Manko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/30/03 02:08PM >>>
Hello,
I'm wondering why the listed "Reply To" address is not
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Thing would be so much easier to just reply than cut-n-paste when reply
to the entire list on a subject (which is the norm).
Can the maintainer set this u
20 matches
Mail list logo
