|
Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 20 Jan 1999 01:27:20 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<010501be4439$7c255a80$0100007f@localhost> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
From: |
|
--On Tuesday, January 19, 1999, 9:55 PM -0800 Gary VanderMolen
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> My recommendation is to simply use the normal Reply command, then verify
>> that your mail client has addressed the message appropriately before you
>> send it.
>
> Uh, this is the same amount of work one would have to do when using
> 'Reply to All'. In the latter case one would have to verify the resulting
> 'To' line and be ready to delete unwanted addressees. How is this more
> trouble than the necessary verifying you mention above?
With a normal reply, your message will usually be addressed appropriately
(either to the list or to the sender, depending on how the list was
configured) without any further editing. However, with a "Reply to All"
command, you will almost always have to edit the address line(s) to prevent
duplication.
> 'Reply to All' also gives you the option to reply to the originator
> privately, which is much more difficult to do with a simple 'Reply'.
Yes, this is true, but it's more of a workaround for a lacking mail client.
The best reply interface I have seen in this regard is in the IMAP client
Mulberry. It has a three specific options ("Reply to Sender", "Reply to
From", and "Reply to All") and a general reply option which pops up a
selection window that allows you to choose any combination of addresses
from the original message.
Alan
|
|
|