From yedwest@utirc.utoronto.ca Wed May 3 14:58:55 1995 Return-Path: Received: from mx5.u.washington.edu by lists.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA27953; Wed, 3 May 95 14:58:55 -0700 Received: from fermat.utirc.utoronto.ca by mx5.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.31 ) id AA15235; Wed, 3 May 95 14:58:53 -0700 Message-Id: <9505032158.AA15235@mx5.u.washington.edu> Subject: Re: I LIKE the Change in the list Configuration! To: yvonnel@netcom.com Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 17:58:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Dr. Edmund West Cc: yoda@csua.berkeley.edu, pac-10@u.washington.edu In-Reply-To: from "Yvonne Lee" at May 3, 95 02:13:12 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 880 I see I started an argument. So far I've received one message of support, but most of you disagree with me. As for Yvonne's comment: > Actually, I'm sending this message to see whether my mailer's reply-to-all > command will correctly put in the Pac-10 mailing list address. It does. > Most mailers also have this command. I know elm does. > Using the reply-to-all command should solve your problem, Ed. The problem with elm's "g" command is that it will send a copy to everyone in the "cc" field as well as to the original sender. That means some people who are not on the list could get a copy by mistake, while those who are will get two. BYW, since I used "g" for this message, I believe Yvonne and Yoda will get two copies. Anyway, I suggest we send our votes directly to Cliff (sorry, Cliff) and stop cluttering up our discussion with (my?) excess baggage. Ed .