 | | Re: Slight change in gateway addressing method
|
|
(...) If the sender chooses not to delete the recipient's name before sending the message, and if the recipient receives the group to which the message is posted via e-mail rather than via news, then yes, they'll receive the same reply twice. If (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Slight change in gateway addressing method
|
|
(...) ^^^...^^^ ^^^...^^^ (...) ^^^...^^^ ^^^...^^^ (...) I just realized something -- on the first read, I totally missed your personal take on this. Maybe the behavior should simply be a personal preference -- i.e., do you want messages coming to (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Slight change in gateway addressing method
|
|
(...) Erm, waitaminute -- what drug was I on when I wrote that?! They're not reversed at all. No Tubbie Custard for a week. --Todd (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Slight change in gateway addressing method
|
|
(...) If LCad moves here, I would think it best if the groups Reply-To is set to work the same way that the mailing list does it. We are used to having LCad replies addressed to the whole list. Occasionally, people post things that have the reply (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Slight change in gateway addressing method
|
|
(...) At work I don't have a reply all option. Of course the system is a main frame with in house e-mail software. I think it passes mail off to another system, which acts as a gateway to a Netcom connection. In any case, I don't have the reply all (...) (26 years ago, 24-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
