replying to list (I give up)
in [General]
|
From: David McGlone on 21 Apr 2010 10:04 On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 09:41 -0400, Dan Joseph wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:33 AM, David McGlone <david(a)dmcentral.net> wrote: > > > I'm not passing judgment, It just saddens me that I have to send > > multiple messages and this isn't because of anyone, it's because of my > > lack of knowledge on how to reply to lists that are set up in this way. > > But I think the "reply to list" like ash suggested solves the multiples > > problem. > > > > And on a positive note, If I wouldn't have brought this discussion up, I > > would have never known. Pretty sure I do now. > > > > > > > > Every couple years this discussion comes up. Cracks me up every time. > > When you hit reply all, just take out all the other addresses and leave the > list one in there. The list was setup like this years ago on purpose, and > they've stated in the past they don't want to change it.. > I'm the type of person that figures out how and why and then weighs my options. Figuring out how to reply properly to this list was the first step, now the next step is figuring out if I can deal with it or not. I've decided to stay for a couple reasons, for one, everybody on this list didn't once get mean or hateful during this whole discussion. That flabbergasted me, because on a lot of lists I am on, quite a few people on those lists would have instantly jumped down my throat. Secondly, Everyone on this list that I have seen ask questions and give advise are darn good programmers, so in order to be in the company of people like this, then changing my habits shouldn't be hard. The reason for the subject change was because I feared I was going to start a flame war, so I was going to back down and just forget I mentioned it. -- Blessings, David M.
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Hans_=C3=85hlin?= on 21 Apr 2010 10:12 2010/4/21 David McGlone <david(a)dmcentral.net>: > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:49 +0200, Peter Lind wrote: >> On 21 April 2010 14:38, Hans à hlin <ahlin.hans(a)kronan-net.com> wrote: >> > Why change the way that has been around for years and adopted by >> > multiple e-mail lists? >> > It feels like it's more problem to change the way for thousands of >> > users just to satisfy a couple of few. >> >> David was venting based on a discussion in another thread. I'm pretty >> sure he knows about the option to reply-all - that's part of the >> reason for venting (it sends multiple emails instead of just the one >> needed). The optimal scenario is to: 1) be able to quickly respond to >> the list, as that's the normal action you want to do and 2) not spam >> people with several emails for no reason (i.e. avoid replying to the >> OP AND the list). > > Exactly. I also feel bad for those who have to pay to download per Mb, > GB, etc. > > It's pitiful that once I send this E-Mail, Peter and Hans both will get > 2 of the exact messages. > Strange I only got one, but it ma be a mail server filter > -- > Blessings, > David M. > >
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Hans_=C3=85hlin?= on 21 Apr 2010 10:12 2010/4/21 David McGlone <david(a)dmcentral.net>: > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:49 +0200, Peter Lind wrote: >> On 21 April 2010 14:38, Hans à hlin <ahlin.hans(a)kronan-net.com> wrote: >> > Why change the way that has been around for years and adopted by >> > multiple e-mail lists? >> > It feels like it's more problem to change the way for thousands of >> > users just to satisfy a couple of few. >> >> David was venting based on a discussion in another thread. I'm pretty >> sure he knows about the option to reply-all - that's part of the >> reason for venting (it sends multiple emails instead of just the one >> needed). The optimal scenario is to: 1) be able to quickly respond to >> the list, as that's the normal action you want to do and 2) not spam >> people with several emails for no reason (i.e. avoid replying to the >> OP AND the list). > > Exactly. I also feel bad for those who have to pay to download per Mb, > GB, etc. > > It's pitiful that once I send this E-Mail, Peter and Hans both will get > 2 of the exact messages. > Strange I only got one, but it ma be a mail server filter > -- > Blessings, > David M. > >
From: David McGlone on 21 Apr 2010 10:20 On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 16:12 +0200, Hans à hlin wrote: > 2010/4/21 David McGlone <david(a)dmcentral.net>: > > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:49 +0200, Peter Lind wrote: > >> On 21 April 2010 14:38, Hans à hlin <ahlin.hans(a)kronan-net.com> wrote: > >> > Why change the way that has been around for years and adopted by > >> > multiple e-mail lists? > >> > It feels like it's more problem to change the way for thousands of > >> > users just to satisfy a couple of few. > >> > >> David was venting based on a discussion in another thread. I'm pretty > >> sure he knows about the option to reply-all - that's part of the > >> reason for venting (it sends multiple emails instead of just the one > >> needed). The optimal scenario is to: 1) be able to quickly respond to > >> the list, as that's the normal action you want to do and 2) not spam > >> people with several emails for no reason (i.e. avoid replying to the > >> OP AND the list). > > > > Exactly. I also feel bad for those who have to pay to download per Mb, > > GB, etc. > > > > It's pitiful that once I send this E-Mail, Peter and Hans both will get > > 2 of the exact messages. > > > > Strange I only got one, but it ma be a mail server filter I just received 3 copies of this message. One went to my PHP folder and 2 went to my Inbox. -- Blessings, David M.
From: "Tommy Pham" on 21 Apr 2010 10:32
I'm sure that the reason why the this list and a few others are setup this way so that if anyone want to reply just to the OP can do so without having to figure out or remembering the e-mail address of the sender. |