[va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- From: Ann Brooks <acdbrooks@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: va-richmond-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:35:10 -0400
I also would like it to stay the way it is. The questions and follow-ups are of interest to me, as well. Since we all need reminders periodically and we get new members, it might be a good idea to send out a periodic reminder of how it is supposed to work. And thanks, Robin, for minding our network for us.
ANN
On Apr 28, 2006, at 5:57 AM, Deannamail@xxxxxxx wrote:
Robin, it's good of you to take a vote on this. I strongly recommend leaving the default as it is, a reply to all of the listserv. That's the major point of a mailing list. Any of us can, and do, initiate off-line conversations by replacing the To: recipient default with the email of the sender.
Deanna
In a message dated 4/27/2006 3:57:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, robin.ruth@xxxxxxx writes:
It appears that, as the list administrator, I can choose an option called
"Reply to Sender" which will "forcibly set the Reply-To: header to be the
address the mail came from." This would prevent accidentally replying to
the whole listserv when you meant to reply to just the sender.
Could I get a vote on whether you want to try this option? Do you want to
experiment with it and decide if we want to keep it that way?
- Follow-Ups:
- [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- From: Al Warfield
- References:
- [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- From: Deannamail
Other related posts:
- » [va-richmond-general] Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- » [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- » [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- » [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- » [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- » [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- » [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- » [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- » [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- » [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- » [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- » [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- » [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- » [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- » [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- » [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
Deanna
In a message dated 4/27/2006 3:57:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, robin.ruth@xxxxxxx writes:
It appears that, as the list administrator, I can choose an option called
"Reply to Sender" which will "forcibly set the Reply-To: header to be the
address the mail came from." This would prevent accidentally replying to
the whole listserv when you meant to reply to just the sender.
Could I get a vote on whether you want to try this option? Do you want to
experiment with it and decide if we want to keep it that way?
- [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- From: Al Warfield
- [va-richmond-general] Re: Reply to Sender vs. Reply to All
- From: Deannamail