Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index


       (1) I'm not referring to the sender vs. the list ... I"m referring
to all the others' which are placed in the cc;
           by clicking on 'reply all', all the e-addresses are picked up -
therefore, I have to be sure that the 'to' has the sender's e-address and
the 'cc' has the list e-address.

       (2) Just what - or who - is RFC ???

       (3) Thank you for standing up against these list-members who respond
at the bottom !



On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Andrew Brager <apb3304@bak.rr.com> wrote:

On 8/15/2012 5:11 PM, anne-ology wrote:




I find deleting to be slightly easier than copy & paste in order to
include the original sender.  Further, what difference does it make to you
how many copies the original sender receives?  If I happen to receive two
copies of a response to me, I delete one - actually I delete both once I'm
done with it.


   exactly;
            this requires having to delete the extraneous e-addresses  ;-)


Time is not the issue.  The issue is, what does the RFC say?  RFC's
determine how things work, and how things will operate together. The
primary problem as I now see it, is that there is apparently no companion
RFC (or at least nobody has mentioned it) that specifies that email clients
need to include a "Reply to List" button.  That's an oversight.  Someone
with the skill and knowledge to amend RFC's needs to make that correction
so that the next versions of all email clients include the button.


         Therefore, I'd like to know what is the time savings in this vs.
having the reply go to the list ???


That's something I agree with, is one of my pet peeves and you've stated
the case perfectly.

         This change isn't anymore logical than some of these responders
who
must think we should re-read the old message before finally seeing
whatever
new message has been added - and their addition becomes almost lost
amongst
the talk unless enough blank lines have been left; logically, the new
message should be where you can read it first - then if you need to
re-fresh your memory, scroll down to see what preceded it.



On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Steve Edmonds
<steve.edmonds@ptglobal.com>**wrote:

I think the safe response when using the changed list settings is use

Reply-all. For simplicity, the only instruction to users of the lists
that
works consistently is Reply-all.

steve


On 2012-08-16 05:22, Jay Lozier wrote:

 On 08/15/2012 12:09 PM, Dan Hall wrote:

 In Outlook 2003 SP3 - Reply = Jay Lozier <jslozier@gmail.com> and
Reply to All = Jay Lozier <jslozier@gmail.com>;users@**
global.libreoffice.org <users@global.libreoffice.org>**.

There is no Reply to List in Outlook.

 Dan,

My reply options changed to "reply all" not "reply list" in Thunderbird
when I received your email. The to field is your email and the cc is
users@global.libreoffice.org.

It appears there is some inconsistent behavior with email clients and
webmail sites depending on how they receive the email

Jay



-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.