No, I wasn't trying to "labour the point" here, I really did forget to "fiddle" the "To" address field for this message (see below). And it's certainly not the first time this has happened to me, or others on this list. :-(
Joe.
-----Original Message----- From: da Silva, Joe Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 7:40 PM To: 'african_chief@bigfoot.com' Subject: RE: List responses (was: standards, responses to list)
Replying to "All recipients" means the originator gets two copies - not very clever, huh? Sure, then you have to remember to edit the "To" field, etc, right?. Or sometimes you forget the whole lot and just "Reply" - then the list thread has gaps.
I'm sorry if this has been debated before ... certainly not in the past 5 months, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to voice my support for the other people who raised this issue. Let's just say the current arrangement is most unconventional ... I'll shut up now. :-/
Joe.
-----Original Message----- From: Prof. A Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) [SMTP:african_chief@bigfoot.com] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 6:59 PM To: gpc mail-list Subject: Re: standards, responses to list (was: compiler bug)
On 15 Oct 2001, at 15:35, da Silva, Joe wrote:
[...]
BTW, I too, disagree with the way that responses to list messages are normally directed to the originator, rather than the list. Maybe if we all share this opinion, we can persuade whoever is responsible to change this?
I really hope that we will not start another thread on this topic. People should get to know their mail readers, and use the facilities thereby provided for replying to all recipients, or to sender.
Best regards, The Chief
Prof. Abimbola Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) Author of Chief's Installer Pro for Win32 Email: African_Chief@bigfoot.com http://www.bigfoot.com/~african_chief/