|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Lists can be constructed so that a click on Reply will just send to the
Originator. If I am not mistaken MetaStocks was this way in the past.
However, since this is not available I recommend the attachment of a
Signature automatically to every EMail. I doubt that Spam is really that
much of a problem and all that is needed for response to the Sender is a
click or two depending on your Browser. Otherwise the Sender must be added
to your Address Book first and this requires several Clicks and then a
deletion from the Book if unwanted permanently.
While in this vein of thought, I would also suggest everyone use the feature
that makes a check of spelling automatically prior to sending the message.
I am sure they are typos as most on the List are better spellers than it
would appear. It would make reading the messages a lot easier.
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Schmitz <pschmi02@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: Clutter on the list
>Christian Baude wrote:
>
>> I think this is a issue of the mailer. When I
>> hit reply, it
>> automatically sends to the list.
>
>I'm afraid you are correct. Sending replies to an
>individual as opposed to the entire list would
>entail an extra step, and perhaps it's too much to
>ask. But what the hell do I want to know who is
>requesting to be included on Jim Greening's
>mailing list! I personally am on it, and it's a
>fine thing. Jim has been very helpful to me, he
>knows a lot, and has a long history of making fine
>contributions here. But does everybody on the
>entire list have to receive a blow by blow of who
>wants to get on? What if I should want to get OFF
>Jim's list? Who gives a hoot? Do I need to tell
>everyone on the entire list spanning several
>continents that I'd like to get off? Many posts
>are simply inane, and unnecessarily so. A
>moment's reflection would suffice!
>
>Posts should be informative and useful to the
>majority of people who come here, don't you
>agree?. It's nice that so-and-so wants to say
>thank you to so-and-so. But doesn't it get
>tedious reading messages like: "Thanks, Ralph."
>"Good call, Jake." "Please include me too."?
>
>'nuff said. I promise.
>
>
|