Milan, I don't take it as an offense at all, not sure what you
understood with my reply, but it was not directed to you at all, was
directed to Wendy the original poster :)
On 8/21/11 3:55 PM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 11:08, Juan Nin wrote:
The "good" or "not good" depends on each person...
Well, yes. There is "proper" also.
There's always debate on this topic on every mailing-list, where
some people claim one way is the "correct" or "better" one, and some
people claim it's the other one, and each of them have their good
reasons... Search on google and you'll find tons of topics on this
matter, and you will be able to see the different opinions about it.
<no offense>
I'm subscribed to different mailing lists for more than fifteen years
and I don't have to search google about that subject, IMHO.
</no offense>
At the end of the day, it's the decision of the list owners, and I'm
sure that they have already thought about this and that they won't
change their mind. :)
Agreed. But, when some random user ask how to reply "canonical way" I
don't think it is rude to tell about "reply to list" option if MUA
support that.
Regards.
On 8/21/11 7:54 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 18:10, Wendy William wrote:
When I do reply any Kannel mail then "To" field filled by sender, not by
users@kannel.org. This is not good since we must use Reply All that caused
double messages.
Check your e-mail client software and see if it have "reply to list" (or
something similar) option.
Kannel mailing lists works quite well with "normal" e-mail clients.
