On 06/08/2010 05:11 PM, ccernn wrote:
> sorry...
> no 'reply' butttons (thunderbird)
Thunderbird 3.0.4 has reply-to-all and reply-to-list buttons.
They are displayed by default. Maybe you've 'customized' them away?
> or any other link (list archives)
The top-most (aka first) link in the email-
Robin Gareus writes:
>
> On 06/08/2010 05:11 PM, ccernn wrote:
> > sorry...
> > no 'reply' butttons (thunderbird)
>
> Thunderbird 3.0.4 has reply-to-all and reply-to-list buttons.
> They are displayed by default. Maybe you've 'customized' them away?
hmmm, i have a reply, and a reply-to-all, b
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:21 PM, ccernn wrote:
> hmmm, i have a reply, and a reply-to-all, but no reply-to-list
Reply-to-all will work, then.
Some people get cross if you reply-to-all to one of their list
messages, because that means they may get two copies of your reply --
one to them directly a
On 06/08/2010 09:07 PM, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:21 PM, ccernn wrote:
>> hmmm, i have a reply, and a reply-to-all, but no reply-to-list
>
> Reply-to-all will work, then.
>
> Some people get cross if you reply-to-all to one of their list
> messages, because that means they m
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Robin Gareus wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 09:07 PM, Chris Cannam wrote:
>> So: reply-to-list is better if you have it, but if you don't, use
>> reply-to-all.
>
> mmh "better" in what way?
"better" in that I have seen complaints from people here before about
getting dupl
