<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 12:55 19 02 03 Wednesday, Owen DeLong wrote:<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>--On Tuesday, February 18, 2003
7:08 PM -0700 "John M. Brown" <john@chagres.net>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>if the PPML list is cc'd and not
the prime, you<br>
then have to have multiple rules.<br>
</blockquote>Or a rule with a "To: or Cc:" clause. (big
deal)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>In addition you get multiple copies
of the same<br>
email.<br>
</blockquote>Yep. This is useful in some cases. (Sometimes I
want to know that<br>
something in a thread is a reply to what I said instead of more
of<br>
the thread in general. In those cases, I have different rules
for<br>
To: and Cc: which work just fine.)</font></blockquote><br>
That's why usenet would be a better place for this type of
discussion.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=3>For
example:<br><br>
This email will send to Jim and Owen, plus the list,<br>
which will send it to Jim and Owen AGAIN<br><br>
So Jim and Owen will get this message TWICE, have to filter<br>
twice and store twice.<br>
</blockquote>Yep. Again, this is useful.</font></blockquote><br>
Really? IMHO it's a waste of bandwidth, storage space, and my time
having to look at more than one copy of an e-mail.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=3>Having
the list set reply-to: to the list reduces this to<br>
only one email each. It also ensures that the LIST<br>
is receiving mail.<br>
</blockquote>No it doesn't, because people still reply-all
anyway.</blockquote><br>
</font>Setup correctly reply all would only have the list address.
The person's address would still be in the headers, but someone would
have to manually put their address in the To:, CC:, or BCC field.<br>
</body>
</html>