179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← back to listing · view thread

From:
Kelley Hackett
To:
Date:
Thu, 9 Mar 2000 09:54:41 -0500
Subject:
RE: (idm) auto reply woes.
Msg-Id:
<397CA68ABF5AD111863C00805F0DDE980E30E8@aba.iupui.edu>
Mbox:
idm.0003.gz
My comments, and I have to apologize to many because it has happened to me on several occasions, the one for Ernie, the message for Brock........the sharp change is really what got me, but hey, now I just copy the persons name, and then delete the list name.......but again, the change is so drastic, on a couple of times I forgot.......My fault........ and since I have your attention, give me a Discography of CIM's music.....(thats out on CD) Hk! -----Original Message----- From: Cesium5Hz@aol.com [mailto:Cesium5Hz@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 7:43 PM To: idm@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: (idm) auto reply woes. In a message dated 9/03/00 6:10:10 jpklein@flash.net writes:
quoted 3 lines Whatever you may think about the autoreply (good or bad), Matt is correct.> Whatever you may think about the autoreply (good or bad), Matt is correct. > Replying to sender always used to be *just* to the sender - not to the > list.
It has definitely changed beyond the standard, which was previous. 313 and Ambient still have the previous reply function. Why the sudden change for idm. Who on this list actually likes this change? A_Zed --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org