28 Feb
2017
28 Feb
'17
2:06 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Dave Wade G4UGM via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
At least in Gmail's web interface, I don't see reply and reply all having
any difference here; they both put both addresses in the To:. I'll have to
check how this works in an IMAP client later.
But I for one welcome our new non-bounce-happy email system! :D
--
Eric Christopherson
-----Original
Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rich
Alderson via cctalk
Sent: 28 February 2017 21:23
To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: I hate the new mail system
OK, it's official. I rarely criticize mail interfaces, because they're
usually
mostly innocuous. However, today's change
makes life a lot more
difficult.
In the past, it was simple to direct a reply to an individual instead of
to the
list
because the originator's address was right
there in the From: header. As
of
today, the list address is substituted for that,
so that it is impossible
to
respond privately unless you happen to have a
bunch of old messages
archived and the person to whom you want to respond is someone who has
written previously.
"reply all" seems to put the original sender and the list in the
"to:"
field..
Is this a conscious choice, or a configurable
with a different default
setting in
a new mail system than was previously in place?
However it came to be,
it
greatly diminishes communications quality (IMAO).
I suspect its to do with SPF records where domains publish a list of
servers
authorised to send mails "from" a certain domain in the DNS.
Leaving the sender in gets the list server black-listed and the mail will
be
bounced by the many servers that check SPF records.