I thought that the moderators had asked for these threads to be ceased.
The number of emails on this topic, along with the ones on unsubscribing is
getting unbelievable - I know, I've just $cout++'d this.
I am on more lists than is good for me, and while some do add a prefix to the
subject other don't. It doesn not make any differece to me. *NONE* of them
have 'reply-to-list' set. This also does not cause me a problem.
Almost every mail client has filtering built in - even MS ones. Use the 'To
or CC' filter as every mail you receive from this list will have 'beginners@'
or 'beginners-cgi@' in one of these fields.
The fact that I receive duplicate replies to my posts is also not annoying -
it makes it more likely that I see it.
Please please PLEASE can we now stop these threads and let the list get on
with what it's supposed to do which is help perl beginners get on with
productive stuff.
Gary
On Wednesday 27 June 2001 1:11 pm, Kris Cook wrote:
> I'm compelled to add my voice to Al's on this. The other lists I've been
> member of have all had the group as the Reply-to address, not the
> individual sender. The monitors need to think this through. People will
> become annoyed with the duplicates, and ask to be removed from the list.
> The community will lose good interactive communication, and be deprived of
> a wealth of potential resources. Who's served by that?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Al Hospers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 3:20 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Different reply-to?
> >
> > > although I *have*
> > > gotten into the habit of using "reply-all" instead of
> > > "reply-to", thus
> > > getting my mail out to its intended recipient, I receive
> > > multiple copies of
> > > the same post from other people who use "reply-all" and don't
> > > take out
> > > everybody's name from the To: field. I have received as many
> > > as three
> > > copies of every message in a thread at times. No wonder I
> > > download 200+
> > > messages a day from these two lists alone.
> > >
> > > If the list must be set to not mess with the reply-to field,
> > > could list
> > > members at least make sure that they cut out addresses from
> > > the To: field
> > > before sending their mail?
> >
> > <uncloaking>
> >
> > I think that this topic was chopped off in mid-stream on beginners. in
> > fact I unsubscribed because when I was active I was getting many
> > doubled posts a day from that list, on top of the normal traffic. very
> > annoying! I don't care what emailer you are using, there is no EASY
> > way to filter out the double postings & it is entirely too easy to do.
> > IMHO both lists are set up backwards from the myriad other lists I
> > belong to. most lists have the Reply field to be the reply to the
> > list, Reply All has the list AND the poster's address. thus you hit
> > Reply & post back to the list ONLY - which is what most people want to
> > do and what most posters want you to do. if you really WANT to reply
> > to the poster directly, something that is often not desired, you click
> > Reply All & dump the list address.
> >
> > the way the list is configured now, if you click reply you will NOT
> > reply to the list at all. thi=us depriving the list members of seeing
> > the dialog. if you click Reply All, unless you make the effort to
> > delete the poster's address, they are going to get double postings.
> >
> > I do not understand the reluctance of the monitors to make this
> > change.
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> > Al Hospers
> > CamberSoft, Inc.
> > al<at>cambersoft<dot>com
> > http://www.cambersoft.com
> >
> > A famous linguist once said:
> > "There is no language wherein a double
> > positive can form a negative."
> >
> > YEAH, RIGHT
--
Gary Stainburn
This email does not contain private or confidential material as it
may be snooped on by interested government parties for unknown
and undisclosed purposes - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000
