-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Chris,
@26 March 2002, 18:34:09 +0100 (17:34 UK time) Chris Lilley wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Just to clarify one more thing... > In 1.60, reply still works the same and reply to all replies to > From, Cc *and Sender* fields. I see what you mean by this now having tested it. It makes a real mess on the old fashioned/*nix style lists. I'm not sure what would be best to do here. The change appeared in Beta 8: [*] The Sender field is used first when no Reply-To specified but nobody took any kind of exception to it at that time and it was introduced to cover a behaviour shortfall. As to whether or not it messes up replying to these old-school lists, I've always found that a carefully crafted set of folder templates gets round the problem. Is it right? Is it wrong? My guess is that it's as wrong as HTML mail. And we all know how many sides there are to that argument. I personally have no firm opinion on this one, other than that it works right for me most of the time (and I deal with a fair amount of mail and a fair amount of lists). - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D. Pearlstone -- List moderator � TB! v1.60-14F4B4B2 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 � -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6-2 (MingW32) iD8DBQE8oTDgOeQkq5KdzaARAhRIAKCxGyG13U9pPTvUF/p1G2nNKmUDMwCfQG3y +/dFKVbL7OIsMx3FetKJ4xs= =3sBV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________________ Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ : http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
