Different reply-to?
Okay, maybe I'm just being silly, but I'm a bit tired of hitting "reply" instead of "reply all" and forgetting that my message wasn't sent to the list. While I want to help people who ask questions, I'd like this help to be available for all. I think it would be a Good Thing to change the mailing list so that the "reply to" points back to the list instead of the individual who sent the message. If we still see the original sender's email address, direct contact could still be an option. Any thoughts? Cheers, Curtis Poe = Senior Programmer Onsite! Technology (http://www.onsitetech.com/) "Ovid" on http://www.perlmonks.org/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: Different reply-to?
At 08:51 26.06.2001 -0700, Curtis Poe wrote: >Okay, maybe I'm just being silly, but I'm a bit tired of hitting "reply" >instead of "reply all" >and forgetting that my message wasn't sent to the list. While I want to >help people who ask >questions, I'd like this help to be available for all. > >I think it would be a Good Thing to change the mailing list so that the >"reply to" points back to >the list instead of the individual who sent the message. If we still see >the original sender's >email address, direct contact could still be an option. > >Any thoughts? Here we go again :) I know this thread has been (justly) closed on perl-beginners, and I don't want to start another one here, but I do want to say that 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? Aaron Craig Programming iSoftitler.com
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? 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. Al Hospers CamberSoft, Inc. alcambersoftcom http://www.cambersoft.com A famous linguist once said: "There is no language wherein a double positive can form a negative." YEAH, RIGHT
RE: Different reply-to?
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? > > > > 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. > > > > Al Hospers > CamberSoft, Inc. > alcambersoftcom > http://www.cambersoft.com > > A famous linguist once said: > "There is no language wherein a double > positive can form a negative." > > YEAH, RIGHT > >
Re: Different reply-to?
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? > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Al Hospers > > CamberSoft, Inc. > > alcambersoftcom > > 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
Re: Different reply-to?
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 01:18:37PM +0100, Gary Stainburn wrote: : I thought that the moderators had asked for these threads to be ceased. Yes, we have. This will be the last and final message on the subject. :) : 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. As I have voiced in the beginners-workers group, we all have to remember that the beginners lists are set up exactly the same way as the 100+ other Perl lists on perl.org. We will not be helping anybody, especially the beginners that want to explore further, by changing the way these lists work. The beginners-workers folks have decided that the best solution is education. We are going to be documenting how to filter @perl.org mailing lists for as many MUAs as we can get our hands on. Please, if you feel like doing this, send your documentation to [EMAIL PROTECTED] : 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. Amen. It is finished. :) Casey West -- Shooting yourself in the foot with Pascal Same as Modula-2 except that the bullet is not the right type for the gun and your hand is blown off.
