On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 08:56 -0400, David McGlone wrote: > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:42 +0200, Daniel Egeberg wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 14:27, David McGlone <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I give up. trying to reply to messages on this list is tedious. I can't > > > pinpoint whether it's because the list is set up to make replies go to > > > the OP or the OP has his reply-to in his mail client set, or most people > > > are hitting the reply-to button instead of simply reply. > > > > Then get a better email client if yours doesn't support "reply to all" > > or "reply to group". It's hardly the mailing list's fault that your > > client doesn't support that. > > My email client does support "reply to all", but it's IMHO > inconsiderate. > > Think about people that have to pay for every Mb they download. "reply > to all" causes these people to have to pay for duplicates. > > Now if somebody on this list was paying for their downloads, then you > and I am costing them money by using "reply to all" and now there are 2 > duplicate messages for them the download. > > How would you feel if this was you? > > -- > Blessings, > David M. > > Did you read the link that David Robley sent on the original thread you made? http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html What you're proposing would cause a lot of problems for the sake of a few people. And I hardly think that a few emails are going to cause a bandwidth issue for anybody. If bandwidth was such an issue, they'd be using an email client that only downloaded the email headers first, and from there you could easily discern the duplicate messages. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
