Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #8458 > unrolled thread

Replying to your own message in Mail

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps

Contents

  Replying to your own message in Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-03-15 23:53 -0400
    Re: Replying to your own message in Mail dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-16 17:20 +1100
      Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-03-16 03:41 -0400
        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-16 20:54 +1100
        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail mcarels@xs4all.nl (Maarten Carels) - 2012-03-16 11:13 +0100
          Re: Replying to your own message in Mail dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-16 21:55 +1100
            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-03-16 12:46 -0400
              Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-03-16 17:08 +0000
                Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-03-16 13:13 -0400
          Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2012-03-16 13:02 +0000
          Re: Replying to your own message in Mail "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2012-03-16 20:34 +0000
            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-17 08:47 +1100
              Re: Replying to your own message in Mail "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2012-03-17 21:26 +0000
        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Richard H <Richard.H@invalid.invalid> - 2012-03-19 17:03 +0000
    Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2012-03-16 13:02 +0000
    Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 11:49 -0600
      Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-03-16 15:11 -0400
        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 14:35 -0600
          Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-03-16 16:55 -0400
    Re: Replying to your own message in Mail "Wayne C. Morris" <wayne.morris@this.is.invalid> - 2012-03-16 15:06 -0500
    Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Sara <saramerriman@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2012-03-21 14:53 +0000
    Re: Replying to your own message in Mail jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-22 16:02 +1300
      Re: Replying to your own message in Mail PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-21 23:19 -0400
        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-22 16:23 +1300
          Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Phillip Jones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-22 00:02 -0400
            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-22 19:52 +1300
              Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-03-22 11:11 +0000
              Re: Replying to your own message in Mail PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-22 10:09 -0400
                Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2012-03-22 11:28 -0400
                  Re: Replying to your own message in Mail jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-23 06:04 +1300
                    Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Phillip Jones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-22 13:21 -0400
                      Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-03-22 18:01 +0000
                        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-22 20:41 -0400
                      Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2012-03-26 07:51 -0700
                        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2012-03-26 18:36 +0000
                        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-27 08:11 +1300
                          Re: Replying to your own message in Mail PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-26 20:48 -0400
                            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-27 18:02 +1300
                            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-03-28 17:04 -0700
                          Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-03-28 17:00 -0700
                            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-29 15:34 +1300
                            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-29 15:47 +1100
                            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-29 10:46 +0200
                            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2012-03-29 21:35 +0000
                              Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-03-29 15:20 -0700
          Re: Replying to your own message in Mail PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-22 10:05 -0400
            Re: Replying to your own message in Mail jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-03-23 06:04 +1300
        Re: Replying to your own message in Mail Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com> - 2012-03-22 08:31 -0600

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#8458 — Replying to your own message in Mail

I'm still using Snow Leopard, I wonder if Apple has fixed this in Lion. 
This is one of the few things I think MS Entourage and Outlook get right.

If I reply to a message in my Sent folder, Mail sends the reply to me, 
CC'ing the original recipients if I do a Reply All.  What I really 
intend when I do this is to add to my earlier reply, sending to the same 
recipients as previously.  I could go back to their message and reply to 
it, but then my first reply wouldn't be included.

Why would I actually want to send the reply to *myself*?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8459

In article <barmar-60CA0E.23534015032012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> I'm still using Snow Leopardgood, I wonder if Apple has fixed this in Lion. 
> This is one of the few things I think MS Entourage and Outlook get right.
> 
> If I reply to a message in my Sent folder, Mail sends the reply to me, 
> CC'ing the original recipients if I do a Reply All.  What I really 
> intend when I do this is to add to my earlier reply, sending to the same 
> recipients as previously.  I could go back to their message and reply to 
> it, but then my first reply wouldn't be included.
> 
> Why would I actually want to send the reply to *myself*?

Of course, literally, Mail.app gets it right. The reply button replies 
to the sender, you. As for reasons, you could be wanting to reply to 
yourself, so you can make extra notes about it for your records or to 
begin to add extras prior to forwarding the lot to original recipient 
or even to third party, you might be rushing to catch a plane, you 
might need access to all this from another. computer elesewhere via 
webmail.

Forward might logically be the more appropriate button.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8460

In article <dorayme-379826.17202716032012@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <barmar-60CA0E.23534015032012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > I'm still using Snow Leopardgood, I wonder if Apple has fixed this in Lion. 
> > This is one of the few things I think MS Entourage and Outlook get right.
> > 
> > If I reply to a message in my Sent folder, Mail sends the reply to me, 
> > CC'ing the original recipients if I do a Reply All.  What I really 
> > intend when I do this is to add to my earlier reply, sending to the same 
> > recipients as previously.  I could go back to their message and reply to 
> > it, but then my first reply wouldn't be included.
> > 
> > Why would I actually want to send the reply to *myself*?
> 
> Of course, literally, Mail.app gets it right. The reply button replies 

Yes, I realize that.  But if you think about the more likely scenario, 
the literal meaning is unlikely to be the intended one.

> to the sender, you. As for reasons, you could be wanting to reply to 
> yourself, so you can make extra notes about it for your records or to 
> begin to add extras prior to forwarding the lot to original recipient 
> or even to third party, you might be rushing to catch a plane, you 
> might need access to all this from another. computer elesewhere via 
> webmail.
> 
> Forward might logically be the more appropriate button.

Yes, but then I have to enter all the recipients again. It also adds a 
"Fwd:" prefix to the message, when I'm not intentionally forwarding, I'm 
just continuing the conversation.

Consider a group discussion making use of Reply-All.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8461

In article <barmar-3DCC8A.03413116032012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <dorayme-379826.17202716032012@news.albasani.net>,
>  dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > In article <barmar-60CA0E.23534015032012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm still using Snow Leopardgood, I wonder if Apple has fixed this in 
> > > Lion. 
> > > This is one of the few things I think MS Entourage and Outlook get right.
> > > 
> > > If I reply to a message in my Sent folder, Mail sends the reply to me, 
> > > CC'ing the original recipients if I do a Reply All.  What I really 
> > > intend when I do this is to add to my earlier reply, sending to the same 
> > > recipients as previously.  I could go back to their message and reply to 
> > > it, but then my first reply wouldn't be included.
> > > 
> > > Why would I actually want to send the reply to *myself*?
> > 
> > Of course, literally, Mail.app gets it right. The reply button replies 
> 
> Yes, I realize that.  But if you think about the more likely scenario, 
> the literal meaning is unlikely to be the intended one.
>
 
Yes, you are quite right. But the fault is that there is no logical 
button to cater for the likeliest use. Reply is only rarely and 
unusually the one wanted. You want it to be used for the likeliest 
human intention rather than for what it strictly says. Forward is more 
logical but is not up to the likeliest intention in forcing you to 
remove the FWD, (which is what I do a lot), and put in the recipients. 
What is needed is a third button to do what is the likeliest, namely 
send the edited along to the original recipients, a SendAgain button.

 
> > to the sender, you. As for reasons, you could be wanting to reply to 
> > yourself, so you can make extra notes about it for your records or to 
> > begin to add extras prior to forwarding the lot to original recipient 
> > or even to third party, you might be rushing to catch a plane, you 
> > might need access to all this from another. computer elesewhere via 
> > webmail.
> > 
> > Forward might logically be the more appropriate button.
> 
> Yes, but then I have to enter all the recipients again. It also adds a 
> "Fwd:" prefix to the message, when I'm not intentionally forwarding, I'm 
> just continuing the conversation.
> 
> Consider a group discussion making use of Reply-All.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8463

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:> 
> Yes, but then I have to enter all the recipients again. It also adds a
> "Fwd:" prefix to the message, when I'm not intentionally forwarding, I'm
> just continuing the conversation.
> 
> Consider a group discussion making use of Reply-All.
How about Message->Send Again? On both my 10.6 laptop and 10.7 desktop
this does what I think you want.

Now if I could get gpg working on the 10.7 machine....

--maarten 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8464

In article <1kh1qog.1stba62fhjo68N%mcarels@xs4all.nl>,
 mcarels@xs4all.nl (Maarten Carels) wrote:

> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:> 
> > Yes, but then I have to enter all the recipients again. It also adds a
> > "Fwd:" prefix to the message, when I'm not intentionally forwarding, I'm
> > just continuing the conversation.
> > 
> > Consider a group discussion making use of Reply-All.
> How about Message->Send Again? On both my 10.6 laptop and 10.7 desktop
> this does what I think you want.

Ah, indeed, yes, so Apple have thought of this! Perhaps a special 
button is not justified because of the rare use.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8467

In article <dorayme-9BE1E0.21550516032012@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <1kh1qog.1stba62fhjo68N%mcarels@xs4all.nl>,
>  mcarels@xs4all.nl (Maarten Carels) wrote:
> 
> > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:> 
> > > Yes, but then I have to enter all the recipients again. It also adds a
> > > "Fwd:" prefix to the message, when I'm not intentionally forwarding, I'm
> > > just continuing the conversation.
> > > 
> > > Consider a group discussion making use of Reply-All.
> > How about Message->Send Again? On both my 10.6 laptop and 10.7 desktop
> > this does what I think you want.
> 
> Ah, indeed, yes, so Apple have thought of this! Perhaps a special 
> button is not justified because of the rare use.

I thought about that, but I don't consider it right, either.  It doesn't 
put "On ... Barry Margolin wrote:" between the new text and the old one, 
it doesn't put a correct In-Reply-To header.

Send Again is for when you need to revise what you sent earlier.  For 
instance, if the message bounced because you sent to the wrong address.

It's not like I'm alone in thinking this is what Reply should do -- 
Microsoft thought of it years ago as well.  I'm not usually a MS fan, 
but they got this heuristic right, I think.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8468

In article <barmar-3164D7.12461116032012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <dorayme-9BE1E0.21550516032012@news.albasani.net>,
>  dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1kh1qog.1stba62fhjo68N%mcarels@xs4all.nl>,
> >  mcarels@xs4all.nl (Maarten Carels) wrote:
> > 
> > > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:> 
> > > > Yes, but then I have to enter all the recipients again. It also adds a
> > > > "Fwd:" prefix to the message, when I'm not intentionally forwarding, I'm
> > > > just continuing the conversation.
> > > > 
> > > > Consider a group discussion making use of Reply-All.
> > > How about Message->Send Again? On both my 10.6 laptop and 10.7 desktop
> > > this does what I think you want.
> > 
> > Ah, indeed, yes, so Apple have thought of this! Perhaps a special 
> > button is not justified because of the rare use.
> 
> I thought about that, but I don't consider it right, either.  It doesn't 
> put "On ... Barry Margolin wrote:" between the new text and the old one, 
> it doesn't put a correct In-Reply-To header.
> 
> Send Again is for when you need to revise what you sent earlier.  For 
> instance, if the message bounced because you sent to the wrong address.

And for when you want to send to some other bods who you forgot to 
include first time round. That way, they all get the same message. And 
if it bounced and then you correct say a typo in an address, why would 
the recipients care that you messed it up the first time?

> It's not like I'm alone in thinking this is what Reply should do -- 
> Microsoft thought of it years ago as well.  I'm not usually a MS fan, 
> but they got this heuristic right, I think.

Reply should do what it says. Send Again is what you're looking for and 
it sounds like the right thing is done. And in both instances (reply and 
send again), that's how I've implemented it in my email client.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8470

In article <timstreater-A15F6B.17083216032012@news.individual.net>,
 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <barmar-3164D7.12461116032012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > In article <dorayme-9BE1E0.21550516032012@news.albasani.net>,
> >  dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1kh1qog.1stba62fhjo68N%mcarels@xs4all.nl>,
> > >  mcarels@xs4all.nl (Maarten Carels) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:> 
> > > > > Yes, but then I have to enter all the recipients again. It also adds 
> > > > > a
> > > > > "Fwd:" prefix to the message, when I'm not intentionally forwarding, 
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > just continuing the conversation.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Consider a group discussion making use of Reply-All.
> > > > How about Message->Send Again? On both my 10.6 laptop and 10.7 desktop
> > > > this does what I think you want.
> > > 
> > > Ah, indeed, yes, so Apple have thought of this! Perhaps a special 
> > > button is not justified because of the rare use.
> > 
> > I thought about that, but I don't consider it right, either.  It doesn't 
> > put "On ... Barry Margolin wrote:" between the new text and the old one, 
> > it doesn't put a correct In-Reply-To header.
> > 
> > Send Again is for when you need to revise what you sent earlier.  For 
> > instance, if the message bounced because you sent to the wrong address.
> 
> And for when you want to send to some other bods who you forgot to 
> include first time round. That way, they all get the same message. And 
> if it bounced and then you correct say a typo in an address, why would 
> the recipients care that you messed it up the first time?
> 
> > It's not like I'm alone in thinking this is what Reply should do -- 
> > Microsoft thought of it years ago as well.  I'm not usually a MS fan, 
> > but they got this heuristic right, I think.
> 
> Reply should do what it says. Send Again is what you're looking for and 
> it sounds like the right thing is done. And in both instances (reply and 
> send again), that's how I've implemented it in my email client.

No, Send Again is NOT what I'm looking for.  I don't want to send the 
old message again, I want to send a new message in the same conversation 
as the previous one.

I could also reply again to the message I originally replied to, but 
then my previous reply will be lost.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8465

Maarten Carels <mcarels@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:> 
>> Yes, but then I have to enter all the recipients again. It also adds a
>> "Fwd:" prefix to the message, when I'm not intentionally forwarding, I'm
>> just continuing the conversation.
>> 
>> Consider a group discussion making use of Reply-All.
> How about Message->Send Again? On both my 10.6 laptop and 10.7 desktop
> this does what I think you want.
> 
That's what I do when I want to add something 8-)


-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8474

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:13:34 UTC, mcarels@xs4all.nl (Maarten Carels)
wrote:

> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:> 
> > Yes, but then I have to enter all the recipients again. It also adds a
> > "Fwd:" prefix to the message, when I'm not intentionally forwarding, I'm
> > just continuing the conversation.
> > 
> > Consider a group discussion making use of Reply-All.
> How about Message->Send Again? On both my 10.6 laptop and 10.7 desktop
> this does what I think you want.

My most frequent use for Send Again is when an email bounces because
there is an invalid address in the To: line. (This most often 
happens because Mail stupidly uses an old address from the Previous 
Recipients list instead of the updated address in the Address Book.)
I also have used it when I simply forgot to include someone in the 
original mailing.

Send Again permits deleting all the original addressees and 
inserting whoever you want. Thus you needn't resend to everybody, 
only to the one person who was overlooked or whose copy bounced.

Another use might be to send an email to the members of your club, 
then Send Again to just the officers, adding some comments that were
not for general knowledge. That way, the officers can see exactly 
what went to the membership in addition to their private 
communication.

-- 
John Varela

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8477

In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-f7ElkSFYHdkz@localhost>,
 "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:

> 
> My most frequent use for Send Again is when an email bounces because
> there is an invalid address in the To: line. (This most often 
> happens because Mail stupidly uses an old address from the Previous 
> Recipients list instead of the updated address in the Address Book.)

So that's why this happens to me too sometimes, always vaguely thought 
I must have done entirely wrong. Wonder if the Mail.app team were 
mainly loyal Western Alliance but with a Russian plant there to do a 
bit of subversion.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8482

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:47:20 UTC, dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> 
wrote:

> In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-f7ElkSFYHdkz@localhost>,
>  "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > My most frequent use for Send Again is when an email bounces because
> > there is an invalid address in the To: line. (This most often 
> > happens because Mail stupidly uses an old address from the Previous 
> > Recipients list instead of the updated address in the Address Book.)
> 
> So that's why this happens to me too sometimes, always vaguely thought 
> I must have done entirely wrong. Wonder if the Mail.app team were 
> mainly loyal Western Alliance but with a Russian plant there to do a 
> bit of subversion.

I have taken to from time to time erasing the entire Previous 
Recipients list.

-- 
John Varela

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8499

On 16/03/2012 7:41 am, in article
barmar-3DCC8A.03413116032012@news.eternal-september.org, "Barry Margolin"
<barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <dorayme-379826.17202716032012@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
>> In article <barmar-60CA0E.23534015032012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm still using Snow Leopardgood, I wonder if Apple has fixed this in Lion.
>>> This is one of the few things I think MS Entourage and Outlook get right.
>>> 
>>> If I reply to a message in my Sent folder, Mail sends the reply to me,
>>> CC'ing the original recipients if I do a Reply All.  What I really
>>> intend when I do this is to add to my earlier reply, sending to the same
>>> recipients as previously.  I could go back to their message and reply to
>>> it, but then my first reply wouldn't be included.
>>> 
>>> Why would I actually want to send the reply to *myself*?
>> 
>> Of course, literally, Mail.app gets it right. The reply button replies
> 
> Yes, I realize that.  But if you think about the more likely scenario,
> the literal meaning is unlikely to be the intended one.
> 
>> to the sender, you. As for reasons, you could be wanting to reply to
>> yourself, so you can make extra notes about it for your records or to
>> begin to add extras prior to forwarding the lot to original recipient
>> or even to third party, you might be rushing to catch a plane, you
>> might need access to all this from another. computer elesewhere via
>> webmail.
>> 
>> Forward might logically be the more appropriate button.
> 
> Yes, but then I have to enter all the recipients again. It also adds a
> "Fwd:" prefix to the message, when I'm not intentionally forwarding, I'm
> just continuing the conversation.
> 
> Consider a group discussion making use of Reply-All.
File... Open As new Message (?)

[But then I'm using Mail 1.2.5 (v553)
-- 
Please reply via Newsgroup

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8466

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> I'm still using Snow Leopard, I wonder if Apple has fixed this in Lion. 
> This is one of the few things I think MS Entourage and Outlook get right.
> 
> If I reply to a message in my Sent folder, Mail sends the reply to me, 
> CC'ing the original recipients if I do a Reply All.  What I really 
> intend when I do this is to add to my earlier reply, sending to the same 
> recipients as previously.  I could go back to their message and reply to 
> it, but then my first reply wouldn't be included.
> 
> Why would I actually want to send the reply to *myself*?

Well, I do from time to time when I do a screen grab on the iPad that I
want to edit on my laptop and/or add to a particular "album" on the iPad.



-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8471

On 2012-03-15 9:53 PM  Barry Margolin wrote:
> I'm still using Snow Leopard, I wonder if Apple has fixed this in Lion.
> This is one of the few things I think MS Entourage and Outlook get right.

One of the many things MS gets wrong.

> If I reply to a message in my Sent folder, Mail sends the reply to me,
> CC'ing the original recipients if I do a Reply All.  What I really
> intend when I do this is to add to my earlier reply, sending to the same
> recipients as previously.  I could go back to their message and reply to
> it, but then my first reply wouldn't be included.
>
> Why would I actually want to send the reply to *myself*

Just delete your address from the To: field. You could move the addresses from the CC: field to 
the To: field.

Mail

-- 
_________________________________

Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8472

In article <jjvuel$ufb$1@dont-email.me>,
 Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just delete your address from the To: field. You could move the addresses 
> from the CC: field to 
> the To: field.

In fact, that's what I usually do.  But sometimes I forget, and then I 
have to delete the unwanted message from my inbox.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8475

On 2012-03-16 1:11 PM  Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article<jjvuel$ufb$1@dont-email.me>,
>   Larry Gusaas<larry.gusaas@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Just delete your address from the To: field. You could move the addresses
>> from the CC: field to
>> the To: field.
> In fact, that's what I usually do.  But sometimes I forget, and then I
> have to delete the unwanted message from my inbox.

When I send an email to multi-recipients, I always send it to myself and put everyone else in 
the Bcc: field. If I wanted to add on a reply to my message, Mails behaviour is exactly how I 
want it. Besides, how difficult is it to delete a message from your inbox?

-- 
_________________________________

Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8476

In article <jk087a$rg3$1@dont-email.me>,
 Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2012-03-16 1:11 PM  Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article<jjvuel$ufb$1@dont-email.me>,
> >   Larry Gusaas<larry.gusaas@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >
> >> Just delete your address from the To: field. You could move the addresses
> >> from the CC: field to
> >> the To: field.
> > In fact, that's what I usually do.  But sometimes I forget, and then I
> > have to delete the unwanted message from my inbox.
> 
> When I send an email to multi-recipients, I always send it to myself and put 
> everyone else in 
> the Bcc: field.

That's not appropriate for group conversations -- think business email, 
not a newsletter.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8473

In article <barmar-60CA0E.23534015032012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> I'm still using Snow Leopard, I wonder if Apple has fixed this in Lion. 
> This is one of the few things I think MS Entourage and Outlook get right.
> 
> If I reply to a message in my Sent folder, Mail sends the reply to me, 
> CC'ing the original recipients if I do a Reply All.  What I really 
> intend when I do this is to add to my earlier reply, sending to the same 
> recipients as previously.  I could go back to their message and reply to 
> it, but then my first reply wouldn't be included.

I just hit Reply All, then delete my address from the To: field, and drag the 
other recipients from the CC: field into the To: field.

Or use the Message - Send Again menu command; it'll make a duplicate of the 
selected message and let you edit it before hitting Send.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps

csiph-web