SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

February 2011

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
scientific linux users <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 9 Feb 2011 00:53:34 +0000
Content-Type:
multipart/signed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (2298 bytes) , signature.asc (555 bytes)
On 02/08/2011 11:48 PM, Chris Tooley wrote:
<>

> We receive emails as CC to scientific linux and a From: <original 
> sender> field.  "Reply to all" is best, as it sends to everyone on the 
> list - especially if you have an answer, this way everyone finds out. 
> Generally I remove the "To:" field when I'm responding, but some people 
> might not, I wouldn't take any offense at it :)

i have been with this tsl for several years now and i understand how this
list works.

yet it is different from all of other list.

other list insert a "reply-to:" or they send 'from: listname'.

as it is, if a replier sends "to: poster" and a "cc: sl", then a
subscriber is 'hammed' and 'spammed' with emails.


if list handler was set up to insert a "reply-to:", which i forget to
do sometimes, it would make things a lot easier.

in respect to your reply, to reply *only* "to:poster", as some subscribers,
do, does deprive rest of subscribers of knowing that post has been answered
and what answer is. also, it leads to multi replies that may not be needed.

even further, a reader could/might be of attitude,

 "oh, that is an easy one to answer. poster has probably received several
  answers by now, so i do not think i will bother".

wherein, fact maybe that no one replies and poster goes without getting
any replies to his post.


i noted in your post, you sent;

  To: [log in to unmask]
  Cc: scientific linux users <[log in to unmask]>

is it really necessary to send to 'owner' of users' list server?


> CentOS and Scientific Linux are both RHEL based - generally,

this i am aware of, but as you say, 'generally'.

> if you find something about packages for CentOS it's applicable to SL.

maybe.

as for offense, definitely, none taken.

i learned years ago to "always consider the source". (GBWG)

-- 

peace out.

tc.hago,

g
.

****
in a free world without fences, who needs gates.
**
help microsoft stamp out piracy - give linux to a friend today.
**
to mess up a linux box, you need to work at it.
to mess up an ms windows box, you just need to *look* at it.
**
learn linux:
'Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition' http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html
'The Linux Documentation Project' http://www.tldp.org/
'LDP HOWTO-index' http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/index.html
'HowtoForge' http://howtoforge.com/
****



ATOM RSS1 RSS2