On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 01:04:49 -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote:
>On Sun, 2002-02-17 at 19:13, Tom Cook wrote:
>> While we're at it, how about setting the 'Reply-To' header to
>> email@example.com, so I can hit 'reply' to send to the list,
>> and don't have to 'reply-all' and delete the sender from the list?
>As inconvenient as it may seem, the headers are set up this way for a
>reason. If a person posts to the list without first subscribing to the
>list, this ensures that the response will actually get to them. And it's
>pretty widely accepted that if someone replies to one of your posts, you
>will get duplicates in your mailbox. (The reply, and the copy of the
>reply on the list.)
Ah, but dupes are annoying at best. How much saner would it be, if on
"reply to all" the recipient list were put in the "to:" slot instead of
"cc:"? Then, to eliminate dupes you would just delete the sender's
address. As it is, you delete the sender, then cut and paste or copy
the recipient list by hand.
As convenient as it ~should~ be to "reply to all" I find it easier to
reply(simple), delete sender and insert from address book--and that's
still a pain in the tuchus. It is, I think, the polite thing to do.
Yes I fear I am living beyond my mental means--Nash