On Sun, 2004-03-21 at 20:48, Jon Myers wrote:
> "Online" since 1985 (I know, not longer than alot of prople, but more
> than a couple years).
But apparently not long enough to know that top posting and not trimming
quotes are both just as bad as reply-to-sender.
;-)
dk
___
Strongly Agree :)
WW
- Original Message Follows -
> The only thing I hate more than not having a proper
> reply-to on a mailing list (one that replies to the LIST)
> is the people who havn't been on the net long enough to
> know how mailing lists work, and their whole function.
> Mailing l
The only thing I hate more than not having a proper reply-to on a mailing list (one
that replies to the LIST) is the people who havn't been on the net long enough to know
how mailing lists work, and their whole function. Mailing lists are communities. The
primary function is to share procedure
On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 22:23, Darren Nickerson wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I strongly support removing the current reply-to-list setting, and you
> should too.
>
> Like many new list admins, I once thought the reply-to was kewel. Requests
> to remove it kept coming up, ... usually around the same time som
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/20/2004 02:58:21 AM:
> You give too much credit to people, indeed. I cannot say about this
list,
> but most lists I use have high corporate populations, where the users
> *have* to use mailers like Outlook or (cringe) Notes. For mailing list
> admins to expect u
> You give too much credit to people, indeed. I cannot say about this list,
> but most lists I use have high corporate populations, where the users
> *have* to use mailers like Outlook or (cringe) Notes.
Outlook and Outlook express implement Reply, and Reply All, which works well
without needing
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 11:23:53PM -0500, Darren Nickerson wrote:
> I strongly support removing the current reply-to-list setting, and you
> should too.
I would agree with this too, when replying to a post, the reply should
be to the sender, if the receipient wants to reply to everyone, then
they
Kevin Walsh wrote:
Darren Nickerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I strongly support removing the current reply-to-list setting, and you
should too.
Like many new list admins, I once thought the reply-to was kewel. Requests
to remove it kept coming up, ... usually around the same time someone
embarra
Darren Nickerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I strongly support removing the current reply-to-list setting, and you
> should too.
>
> Like many new list admins, I once thought the reply-to was kewel. Requests
> to remove it kept coming up, ... usually around the same time someone
> embarrassed the
G'day Darren,
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Darren Nickerson wrote:
> I give people much more credit than you do, as does the author of that
> essay. So do most experienced list-owners out there. Anyone who wants a
> post to go to the list will use the 'reply all' feature of their mailer.
> They'll under
> Removing the reply to all is a bad idea, How are you going to be able to
> tell someone to search the list, if they don't reply to the list. People
> will answer the same questions over and over again, use your mail software
> and write some filters, or remove yourself from this list, and use the
Removing the reply to all is a bad idea, How are you going to be able to
tell someone to search the list, if they don't reply to the list. People
will answer the same questions over and over again, use your mail software
and write some filters, or remove yourself from this list, and use the IRC
Folks,
I strongly support removing the current reply-to-list setting, and you
should too.
Like many new list admins, I once thought the reply-to was kewel. Requests
to remove it kept coming up, ... usually around the same time someone
embarrassed themselves by posting a personal reply/flame to th
13 matches
Mail list logo
