>I know very little about lists; however, on every list that I've been on,
>replying to a list message replied to the list.
Most lists are set up that way. Occasionally, a list will be set up to
reply to the sender (which helps reduce traffic on high-volume lists and
lists where there may be lots of people unfamiliar with mailing lists and
how they work).
>Is this guy just rambling, or does he have a clue? (BTW, the overwhelming
>majority want to leave the list as it is, with reply to list turned ON).
There's a comination of both down here...
>I hope some people are not operating under a misaprehension here. The
>return receipt issue is an individual setting and not one that is
>controlled by the listserve software. The same holds true for vacation
>messages et al (we've had a few of those as well). Also, on any listserve
>software there should be no need to manually put anything in; If you hit
>"reply to all" it should go to both the individual sender AND the list
>(you can then delete the individual if you so wish).
This sounds correct.
>It simply requires an entry in the SMTP or IMAP variable in the listserve
>script(depending on your mail software).
Techno-babble or some variation. I can't see why a listserver would need
any IMAP settings.
>I still want the list too, it is invaluable, but I don't want the same
>message 27 times, which is what is happening now.
If anyone is receiving more than 2 copies of a mailing list message, there
is a problem. They could be subscribed twice, the message could be sent
more than once, etc. 2 copies should be the most (one from the listserver,
and one from someone who replies both to the list and the sender). But he
is complaining about the return receipts, which can't be handled with his
"reply to sender" idea.
>Right now we appear to be replying to the list, NOT the listserve
>(software) which should be in control.
Techno-babble. "The list" and "the listserve software" should be one and
the same. Many mailing lists have 2 separate addresses (one to send E-mail
to the list, the other to accept commands for subscriptions and such). But
replies should go to the list, not to the "command" address. If they did
go to the "command" address, it would never make it to the mailing list
subscribers.
>I for one am tired of receiving email receipts for people who have that
>option turned on in Outlook.
This has nothing to do with the "reply to list" versus "reply to
sender". The return receipts that list recipients receive are from people
who send an E-mail to the list. So switching to "reply to sender" would
only help this guy because fewer messages would show up on the
list. Anyone with return receipts enabled who sent a message directly to
the list would cause the problem, regardless of the "reply to" setting.
>Don't misunderstand, its not their fault, they have every right to utilize
>the receipt function; it is a failing of the listserver that it does not
>default to "reply" being the individual and "reply to all" being the list.
Wrong, incorrect, does not compute. See my last comment for an explanation.
-Scott
Declude: Anti-virus, Anti-spam and Anti-hijacking solutions for
IMail. http://www.declude.com
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
