Re: New system
Mr Doug writes: > On the old PEN-L system, PINE used to distinguish between the "From:" and > "Reply to:" fields, and it would ask "Use reply to instead of From?" That > no longer happens - apparently the Reply to: field is empty now. I have > other mailers to choose from here, but I'm habituated to PINE, and like > all old farts, reluctant to change. So is there some way to fill the reply > field? Or can some Unix junkies offer some advice? _Exactly_ the solution I asked for, Doug. Leave the from line as the sender, and make "reply to:" the pen-l address. The best of all worlds. And don't be feeling ashamed of Pine, there, Doug. :) It and Elm are becoming something of default standards on most commerical connections I know of. As to Marsh's comment: > > Some of us have mail systems that distinguish between the mailing list, > > the mail's author, and other conceptually distinct entities involved > > in the posting's origins. In such systems, knowing the mail comes > > from a particular individual IN ADDITION to knowing it is forwarded by > > a particular list is very useful. Whatever solution is found for > > Doug's problem ought not take away the additional functionality enjoyed > > by those of us with more capable mail processing software. Pine does all this. It just needs the "reply to:" part filled in. The current set-up change prevents me from sorting incoming mail into folders (like one for PEN-L and one for PSN, etc.), instead flooding my personal mailbox with messages that _seem_ to be to me directly. Ken. -- "Don't HATE the media... | K.K.Campbell beCOME the media!" --*--<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - J. Biafra | . . . . cum grano salis
Re: New system
Mr Doug writes: > On the old PEN-L system, PINE used to distinguish between the "From:" and > "Reply to:" fields, and it would ask "Use reply to instead of From?" That > no longer happens - apparently the Reply to: field is empty now. I have > other mailers to choose from here, but I'm habituated to PINE, and like > all old farts, reluctant to change. So is there some way to fill the reply > field? Or can some Unix junkies offer some advice? _Exactly_ the solution I asked for, Doug. Leave the from line as the sender, and make "reply to:" the pen-l address. The best of all worlds. And don't be feeling ashamed of Pine, there, Doug. :) It and Elm are becoming something of default standards on most commerical connections I know of. As to Marsh's comment: > > Some of us have mail systems that distinguish between the mailing list, > > the mail's author, and other conceptually distinct entities involved > > in the posting's origins. In such systems, knowing the mail comes > > from a particular individual IN ADDITION to knowing it is forwarded by > > a particular list is very useful. Whatever solution is found for > > Doug's problem ought not take away the additional functionality enjoyed > > by those of us with more capable mail processing software. Pine does all this. It just needs the "reply to:" part filled in. The current set-up change prevents me from sorting incoming mail into folders (like one for PEN-L and one for PSN, etc.), instead flooding my personal mailbox with messages that _seem_ to be to me directly. Ken. -- "Don't HATE the media... | K.K.Campbell beCOME the media!" --*--<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - J. Biafra | . . . . cum grano salis
Re: New system
On the old PEN-L system, PINE used to distinguish between the "From:" and "Reply to:" fields, and it would ask "Use reply to instead of From?" That no longer happens - apparently the Reply to: field is empty now. I have other mailers to choose from here, but I'm habituated to PINE, and like all old farts, reluctant to change. So is there some way to fill the reply field? Or can some Unix junkies offer some advice? Doug Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax) On Tue, 15 Mar 1994, Marshall Feldman wrote: > > >Posted on 14 Mar 1994 at 10:59:09 by Uriacc Mailer (002033) > > > >New system > > > >Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 07:57:23 -0800 > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >It's confusing not to have PEN-L listed as the source of a message; the > >new software makes everything look like pseudo-personalized direct mail. > >And, at least on this system (PINE 3.05, on a Sun UNIX), you can't reply > >to PEN-L; a reply goes to the author. > > > >Can this be fixed? Or is this the price of progress? > > > >Doug > > > >Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Left Business Observer > >212-874-4020 (voice) > >212-874-3137 (fax) > > > > > > Some of us have mail systems that distinguish between the mailing list, > the mail's author, and other conceptually distinct entities involved > in the posting's origins. In such systems, knowing the mail comes > from a particular individual IN ADDITION to knowing it is forwarded by > a particular list is very useful. Whatever solution is found for > Doug's problem ought not take away the additional functionality enjoyed > by those of us with more capable mail processing software. > > Marsh Feldman > Community Planning Phone: 401/792-2248 > 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/792-4395 > University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Kingston, RI 02881-0815
Re: New system
On the old PEN-L system, PINE used to distinguish between the "From:" and "Reply to:" fields, and it would ask "Use reply to instead of From?" That no longer happens - apparently the Reply to: field is empty now. I have other mailers to choose from here, but I'm habituated to PINE, and like all old farts, reluctant to change. So is there some way to fill the reply field? Or can some Unix junkies offer some advice? Doug Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 212-874-4020 (voice) 212-874-3137 (fax) On Tue, 15 Mar 1994, Marshall Feldman wrote: > > >Posted on 14 Mar 1994 at 10:59:09 by Uriacc Mailer (002033) > > > >New system > > > >Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 07:57:23 -0800 > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >It's confusing not to have PEN-L listed as the source of a message; the > >new software makes everything look like pseudo-personalized direct mail. > >And, at least on this system (PINE 3.05, on a Sun UNIX), you can't reply > >to PEN-L; a reply goes to the author. > > > >Can this be fixed? Or is this the price of progress? > > > >Doug > > > >Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Left Business Observer > >212-874-4020 (voice) > >212-874-3137 (fax) > > > > > > Some of us have mail systems that distinguish between the mailing list, > the mail's author, and other conceptually distinct entities involved > in the posting's origins. In such systems, knowing the mail comes > from a particular individual IN ADDITION to knowing it is forwarded by > a particular list is very useful. Whatever solution is found for > Doug's problem ought not take away the additional functionality enjoyed > by those of us with more capable mail processing software. > > Marsh Feldman > Community Planning Phone: 401/792-2248 > 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/792-4395 > University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Kingston, RI 02881-0815
Re: New system
>Posted on 14 Mar 1994 at 10:59:09 by Uriacc Mailer (002033) > >New system > >Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 07:57:23 -0800 >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >It's confusing not to have PEN-L listed as the source of a message; the >new software makes everything look like pseudo-personalized direct mail. >And, at least on this system (PINE 3.05, on a Sun UNIX), you can't reply >to PEN-L; a reply goes to the author. > >Can this be fixed? Or is this the price of progress? > >Doug > >Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Left Business Observer >212-874-4020 (voice) >212-874-3137 (fax) > > Some of us have mail systems that distinguish between the mailing list, the mail's author, and other conceptually distinct entities involved in the posting's origins. In such systems, knowing the mail comes from a particular individual IN ADDITION to knowing it is forwarded by a particular list is very useful. Whatever solution is found for Doug's problem ought not take away the additional functionality enjoyed by those of us with more capable mail processing software. Marsh Feldman Community Planning Phone: 401/792-2248 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/792-4395 University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kingston, RI 02881-0815
Re: New system
>Posted on 14 Mar 1994 at 10:59:09 by Uriacc Mailer (002033) > >New system > >Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 07:57:23 -0800 >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >It's confusing not to have PEN-L listed as the source of a message; the >new software makes everything look like pseudo-personalized direct mail. >And, at least on this system (PINE 3.05, on a Sun UNIX), you can't reply >to PEN-L; a reply goes to the author. > >Can this be fixed? Or is this the price of progress? > >Doug > >Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Left Business Observer >212-874-4020 (voice) >212-874-3137 (fax) > > Some of us have mail systems that distinguish between the mailing list, the mail's author, and other conceptually distinct entities involved in the posting's origins. In such systems, knowing the mail comes from a particular individual IN ADDITION to knowing it is forwarded by a particular list is very useful. Whatever solution is found for Doug's problem ought not take away the additional functionality enjoyed by those of us with more capable mail processing software. Marsh Feldman Community Planning Phone: 401/792-2248 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/792-4395 University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kingston, RI 02881-0815
