Re: [SQL] reply to setting
Greg Stark wrote: Just as a side comment, one trick I found very helpful in my mail filters is to treat any message with one of my message-ids in the references as a personal message as far as mail notifications. This way I get notifications for any message on a thread following a post of my own. Interesting idea -- thanks! Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [SQL] reply to setting
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is very true. In fact, I get mildly annoyed when people *don't* include > the direct reply to me, because I very actively filter/redirect my mail. > Replies directly to me are pretty much guaranteed to be seen quickly, but the > ones that go to the list might get lost among the hundreds of posts that go > into my "postgres" inbox every day. I think many other people do something > similar. Just as a side comment, one trick I found very helpful in my mail filters is to treat any message with one of my message-ids in the references as a personal message as far as mail notifications. This way I get notifications for any message on a thread following a post of my own. This is easy in Gnus since the message id has the sending hostname and also the first few characters has a base64 encoded copy of the unix userid. You would have to figure out how to recognize message-ids from your MUA. -- greg ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [SQL] reply to setting
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 13:45:21 -0700, Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > >The duplication is needless. Direct replies very often get to the recipient > ^ > is *not* needless? Yeah, I made a typo. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [SQL] reply to setting
> > faster than ones sent through the lists. It is also possible that the direct > > replies might be handled differently by the recipient (e.g. a filter may put > > them in different folders). > > This is very true. In fact, I get mildly annoyed when people *don't* > include the direct reply to me, because I very actively filter/redirect If you don't want duplicates, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following command (or something similar to this anyway): set pgsql-hackers eliminatecc Whenever you're in the To: or Cc: headers, the list will not send you a copy of the message -- so you only receive it once. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [SQL] reply to setting
Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 09:33:08 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: any reason why the default reply-to on this list should not be set to the list? I keep replying to postings only to find later that the reply goes to the OP and not to the list. reply-all button results in needless duplication The duplication is needless. Direct replies very often get to the recipient ^ is *not* needless? faster than ones sent through the lists. It is also possible that the direct replies might be handled differently by the recipient (e.g. a filter may put them in different folders). This is very true. In fact, I get mildly annoyed when people *don't* include the direct reply to me, because I very actively filter/redirect my mail. Replies directly to me are pretty much guaranteed to be seen quickly, but the ones that go to the list might get lost among the hundreds of posts that go into my "postgres" inbox every day. I think many other people do something similar. Recipients that prefer not to get separate copies can indicate that desire by including an appropiate mail-followup-to header. Also true. Joe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [SQL] reply to setting
On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 09:33:08 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi, > any reason why the default reply-to on this list should not be set to the > list? I keep replying to postings only to find later that the reply goes to > the OP and not to the list. reply-all button results in needless duplication The duplication is needless. Direct replies very often get to the recipient faster than ones sent through the lists. It is also possible that the direct replies might be handled differently by the recipient (e.g. a filter may put them in different folders). Recipients that prefer not to get separate copies can indicate that desire by including an appropiate mail-followup-to header. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [SQL] reply to setting
Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > any reason why the default reply-to on this list should not be set to the > list? I keep replying to postings only to find later that the reply goes to > the OP and not to the list. reply-all button results in needless duplication It works fine for the rest of us. Fix your mail software. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
[SQL] reply to setting
hi, any reason why the default reply-to on this list should not be set to the list? I keep replying to postings only to find later that the reply goes to the OP and not to the list. reply-all button results in needless duplication -- regards kg http://www.onlineindianhotels.net - fastest hotel search website in the world http://www.ootygolfclub.org ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
