Hello Thomas,
Mon, 4 Nov 2002 at 12:30:24[GMT +0700](05:30 where I live) you wrote
in mid:15144815284.20021104123024;gmx.net :
TF Funny, I don't undersand your sentiment. Personalisation was the exact
TF reason for the mass mailing feature. Please explain why this is not so
TF good.
I send out
Hello Mary,
Mon, 4 Nov 2002 at 00:04:51[GMT -0600](06:04 where I live) you wrote
in mid:577703435.20021104000451;premiernet.net :
TF Hello Richard,
MB And then you appended this sig:
Ye gods, where (or in which message) was that because I can't see it
here? My sig is all in English - I can't
Hello Richard,
Mon, 4 Nov 2002 at 09:31:49[GMT +](09:31 where I live) you wrote
in mid:10735531812.20021104093149;cix.co.uk :
RW Ye gods, where (or in which message) was that because I can't see it
RW here? My sig is all in English - I can't speak German - and I've
RW checked my posting in
Hello Richard,
Monday, November 4, 2002, 3:39:10 AM, you wrote:
RW Ye gods, where (or in which message) was that because I can't see it
RW here? My sig is all in English - I can't speak German - and I've
RW checked my posting in this thread (I presume it's where you are talking
RW about) and
Hello Mary,
Mon, 4 Nov 2002 at 07:35:08[GMT -0600](13:35 where I live) you wrote
in mid:1332579947.20021104073508;premiernet.net :
MB Are you subscribed there? It's an interesting list.
Well I wasn't and still am not. Joined Yahoo but kept getting asked
for password umpteen times so gave up in
Hello Richard,
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 16:14:30 + GMT (04/11/02, 23:14 +0700 GMT),
Richard Wakeford wrote:
MB Are you subscribed there? It's an interesting list.
Well I wasn't and still am not. Joined Yahoo but kept getting asked
for password umpteen times so gave up in disgust :-(
You don't
Hello Richard,
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:26:09 + GMT (04/11/02, 16:26 +0700 GMT),
Richard Wakeford wrote:
Well I want both :-)
Eat the cake and keep it too. Don't we all? :-)
I realise that, if I have a particularly large newsletter to send it
would be quicker to use BCC but that I will
Hello Thomas,
Mon, 4 Nov 2002 at 23:27:52[GMT +0700](16:27 where I live) you wrote
in mid:1691724950.20021104232752;gmx.net :
TF You don't need to become a Yahoo member to subscribe. Just send an
TF empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and answer the
TF confirmation message.
Thanks again for your
Hello Richard,
Monday, November 4, 2002, 10:14:30 AM, you wrote:
MB Are you subscribed [to tbot]? It's an interesting list.
RW Well I wasn't and still am not. Joined Yahoo but kept getting asked
RW for password umpteen times so gave up in disgust :-(
Oh, I hate that part of it too, Haven't
Hello,
I have an address list of 55 people and, the last time I sent a
message with an attachment, 55 individual mail attachments were sent
along with 55 individual messages after I had used the Mass mailing
using template option to invoke a quick template. I can't remember
this happening before
Hello Richard,
Apart from using a BCC (which then does not allow for the personal
hello that the Quick Template allows) how do I stop the attachment
being sent 55 times. Fortunately it was only a small one this time
:-)
Although I have never used it myself, I believe the idea of Mass
mailing
Hello Miguel,
Sun, 3 Nov 2002 at 22:10:26[GMT +0100](21:10 where I live) you wrote
in mid:7035679314.20021103221026;ermspain.com :
MAU If the message includes an attachment it will be send
MAU along with each message, in your case 55 times. If you want to only
MAU send the attachment once you
Hello Richard,
On Sun, 3 Nov 2002 21:21:01 + GMT (04/11/02, 04:21 +0700 GMT),
Richard Wakeford wrote:
MAU If the message includes an attachment it will be send
MAU along with each message, in your case 55 times. If you want to only
MAU send the attachment once you will have to include the 55
Hello Thomas,
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:30:24 +0700 GMT (04/11/02, 12:30 +0700 GMT),
Thomas Fernandez wrote:
If you want to send the attachment only once, why is BCC is an option
you would want to chose?
Typo. Why is BCC *not* an option
--
Cheers,
Thomas.
Moderator der deutschen The Bat!
Hello Thomas,
More than slightly Off Topic reply here, to you:
Sunday, November 3, 2002, 11:30:24 PM, you wrote:
TF Hello Richard,
And then you appended this sig:
Warum hatte Bach so viele Kinder, Kant jedoch kein einziges? - Weil
Bach sich auf die Kunst der Fuge verstand, waehrend Kant nur
15 matches
Mail list logo
