On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 17:55 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote: > On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 18:33 +0000, Laurence wrote: > > On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 18:15 +0000, Laurence wrote: > > > On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 00:40 -0500, Johnathan Bailes wrote: > > > > On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:40:32 -0500, Chet Ranaweera > > > > <ckranaweera@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > snip > > > > > > > Don't think it quite works that was for a WEB cam! > > > > > > > Not replying to my own message.. Please use 'reply to all' to get > > responses onto the list. > > > > "Reply to all" usually (at least for me) sends a message to the > originator as well as to the list. Please just do a "reply" to get to > the list. Check the TO line in your reply email to see that. I find on a number of messages "reply" only gets the sender not the list! > > A "rely to all" message for list subscribers will often result in 2 > copies being received since one is from the list and one from the person > replying. This is usually unnecessary and often aggravating to the > receipient. > I would say this is better than not getting a reply onto the list at all > I find that _*SOME*_ messages on the list seem to have the "Reply-To: > set to include both the list address and the senders address while > others only have the list address in the Reply-T0: header. On those > messages a reply will go to both addresses unless you carefully remove > the extra address. > > >
