Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Reply settings on this list have changed

       (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