Re: [Very OT] Can we cut out the me, toos
Hey guys, lighten up! And read what he said. Those of us forced to use poorly designed mailers might find it easier to have both addresses in the Reply-To field. Personally, I disagree, but I will do so politely. (And I can speak with authority about poorly designed mailers. I am forced not only to use Outlook, but some bright person disabled Reply All so that in my office we _have_ to cut and paste to carry out a group conversation.) Yes, people should think about who they are sending to. Yes, education might help, but awareness helps more. But a good mail client would make it easier. BTW, netiquette never was what it used to be (or at least it hasn't been since 1979). - Kai. Do just once what others say you can't do, and you will never pay attention to their limitations again. -- James R. Cook -Original Message- From: Remco Post [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 17 December 2002 4:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Very OT] Re: Can we cut out the me, toos (was Re: TSM Presentation) -- Information from the mail header --- Sender: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poster: Remco Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Very OT] Re: Can we cut out the me, toos (was Re: TSM Presentation) -- - On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:45:05 +0100 Gerhard Rentschler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, probably a change in the listserv config of this mailing list may help. Each mail I get from this list has the list as reply address. For replying to the sender you have to cut the mail address from the mail and do a forward. This is the case at least with Outlook. It might help a little bit if with reply to all I could get both addresses, the list's and the sender's address. If I want to reply only to the sender, I could remove the list address. Best regards Gerhard So now the list is at fault when people choose to use e-mail clients that cannot behave. errr. Probably, people should start thinking about to who they send their emails, and what they send. Apart from me-toos, annoying behaviour includes the out-of-office autoreplys (perfreably to the list ;-) and the ~20 line standard disclaimer, which in itself is complete nonsense on any mailinglist, and probably even in normal person-to-person e-mail. Netiquette isn't what it used to be... :-)
Re: [Very OT] Can we cut out the me, toos
Kai, thanks for your message. I thought I was misunderstood because of my poor English. It is my observation that teaching people moral or netiquette is not very often successful. Telling people they should be careful with vacancy notices is as much noise as the Out of Office mails themselves. Either we can use thechnology to filter out unwanted messages or we will have to accept the unavoidable. Best regards Gerhard --- Gerhard Rentschleremail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Regional Computing Center tel. ++49/711/685 5806 University of Stuttgart fax: ++49/711/682357 Allmandring 30a D 70550 Stuttgart Germany -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kai Hintze Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 4:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Very OT] Can we cut out the me, toos Hey guys, lighten up! And read what he said. Those of us forced to use poorly designed mailers might find it easier to have both addresses in the Reply-To field. Personally, I disagree, but I will do so politely. (And I can speak with authority about poorly designed mailers. I am forced not only to use Outlook, but some bright person disabled Reply All so that in my office we _have_ to cut and paste to carry out a group conversation.) Yes, people should think about who they are sending to. Yes, education might help, but awareness helps more. But a good mail client would make it easier. BTW, netiquette never was what it used to be (or at least it hasn't been since 1979). - Kai. Do just once what others say you can't do, and you will never pay attention to their limitations again. -- James R. Cook -Original Message- From: Remco Post [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 17 December 2002 4:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Very OT] Re: Can we cut out the me, toos (was Re: TSM Presentation) -- Information from the mail header --- Sender: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poster: Remco Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Very OT] Re: Can we cut out the me, toos (was Re: TSM Presentation) -- - On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:45:05 +0100 Gerhard Rentschler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, probably a change in the listserv config of this mailing list may help. Each mail I get from this list has the list as reply address. For replying to the sender you have to cut the mail address from the mail and do a forward. This is the case at least with Outlook. It might help a little bit if with reply to all I could get both addresses, the list's and the sender's address. If I want to reply only to the sender, I could remove the list address. Best regards Gerhard So now the list is at fault when people choose to use e-mail clients that cannot behave. errr. Probably, people should start thinking about to who they send their emails, and what they send. Apart from me-toos, annoying behaviour includes the out-of-office autoreplys (perfreably to the list ;-) and the ~20 line standard disclaimer, which in itself is complete nonsense on any mailinglist, and probably even in normal person-to-person e-mail. Netiquette isn't what it used to be... :-)
Re: [Very OT] Can we cut out the me, toos
Well that makes me think of a old saying, Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a life time... Even the oldest dog can be taught new tricks.. you just need the proper motivation. :) Mark -Original Message- From: Gerhard Rentschler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Very OT] Can we cut out the me, toos Kai, thanks for your message. I thought I was misunderstood because of my poor English. It is my observation that teaching people moral or netiquette is not very often successful. Telling people they should be careful with vacancy notices is as much noise as the Out of Office mails themselves. Either we can use thechnology to filter out unwanted messages or we will have to accept the unavoidable. Best regards Gerhard --- Gerhard Rentschleremail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Regional Computing Center tel. ++49/711/685 5806 University of Stuttgart fax: ++49/711/682357 Allmandring 30a D 70550 Stuttgart Germany -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kai Hintze Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 4:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Very OT] Can we cut out the me, toos Hey guys, lighten up! And read what he said. Those of us forced to use poorly designed mailers might find it easier to have both addresses in the Reply-To field. Personally, I disagree, but I will do so politely. (And I can speak with authority about poorly designed mailers. I am forced not only to use Outlook, but some bright person disabled Reply All so that in my office we _have_ to cut and paste to carry out a group conversation.) Yes, people should think about who they are sending to. Yes, education might help, but awareness helps more. But a good mail client would make it easier. BTW, netiquette never was what it used to be (or at least it hasn't been since 1979). - Kai. Do just once what others say you can't do, and you will never pay attention to their limitations again. -- James R. Cook -Original Message- From: Remco Post [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 17 December 2002 4:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Very OT] Re: Can we cut out the me, toos (was Re: TSM Presentation) -- Information from the mail header --- Sender: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poster: Remco Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Very OT] Re: Can we cut out the me, toos (was Re: TSM Presentation) -- - On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:45:05 +0100 Gerhard Rentschler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, probably a change in the listserv config of this mailing list may help. Each mail I get from this list has the list as reply address. For replying to the sender you have to cut the mail address from the mail and do a forward. This is the case at least with Outlook. It might help a little bit if with reply to all I could get both addresses, the list's and the sender's address. If I want to reply only to the sender, I could remove the list address. Best regards Gerhard So now the list is at fault when people choose to use e-mail clients that cannot behave. errr. Probably, people should start thinking about to who they send their emails, and what they send. Apart from me-toos, annoying behaviour includes the out-of-office autoreplys (perfreably to the list ;-) and the ~20 line standard disclaimer, which in itself is complete nonsense on any mailinglist, and probably even in normal person-to-person e-mail. Netiquette isn't what it used to be... :-) Confidentiality Note: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to whom or which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please delete this material immediately.
Re: [Very OT] Can we cut out the me, toos
Unfortunately that little disclaimer is added after I send the email, it is a company policy, and there is nothing you nor I can do about it. As far as a cow catching a rabbit... that is highly unlikely and totally irrelevant to this conversation. Please elaborate, I'm from the United States and do not understand Holland humor it seems. Mark -Original Message- From: Henk ten Have [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Very OT] Can we cut out the me, toos On 18-Dec-02 Remeta, Mark wrote: Well that makes me think of a old saying, Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a life time... Very nice. As we say in Holland: If a cow can catch a rabbit. From: Remco Post [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] and the ~20 line standard disclaimer, which in itself is complete nonsense on any mailinglist, and probably even in normal person-to-person e-mail. Confidentiality Note: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to whom or which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please delete this material immediately. Ok, only six lines, not too bad...;-) Btw, if you reply, skip all the 'history' replies Cheers, Henk 'no disclaimer' ten Have Confidentiality Note: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to whom or which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please delete this material immediately.
