Well that makes me think of a old saying,

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will
eat for a life time...

Even the oldest dog can be taught new tricks.. you just need the proper
motivation.

:)

Mark


-----Original Message-----
From: Gerhard Rentschler [mailto:g.rentschler AT RUS.UNI-STUTTGART DOT DE]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 10:33 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [Very OT] Can we cut out the "me, toos"


Kai, thanks for your message. I thought I was misunderstood because of my
poor English.
It is my observation that teaching people moral or netiquette is not very
often successful. Telling people they should be careful with vacancy notices
is as much noise as the "Out of Office" mails themselves. Either we can use
thechnology to filter out unwanted messages or we will have to accept the
unavoidable.
Best regards
Gerhard

---
Gerhard Rentschler            email:g.rentschler AT rus.uni-stuttgart DOT de
Regional Computing Center     tel.   ++49/711/685 5806
University of Stuttgart       fax:   ++49/711/682357
Allmandring 30a
D 70550
Stuttgart
Germany



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On Behalf Of
> Kai Hintze
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 4:13 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [Very OT] Can we cut out the "me, toos"
>
>
> Hey guys, lighten up! And read what he said. Those of us forced to use
> poorly designed mailers might find it easier to have  both
> addresses in the
> Reply-To field. Personally, I disagree, but I will do so politely. (And I
> can speak with authority about poorly designed mailers. I am
> forced not only
> to use Outlook, but some bright person disabled "Reply All" so that in my
> office  we _have_ to cut and paste to carry out a group conversation.)
>
> Yes, people should think about who they are sending to. Yes,
> education might
> help, but awareness helps more. But a good mail client would make
> it easier.
>
> BTW, netiquette never was what it used to be (or at least it hasn't been
> since 1979).
>
> - Kai.
>
> "Do just once what others say you can't do, and you will never
> pay attention
> to their limitations again." -- James R. Cook
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Remco Post [mailto:r.post AT SARA DOT NL]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 17 December 2002 4:39 AM
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject: [Very OT] Re: Can we cut out the "me, toos" (was Re: TSM
> > Presentation)
> >
> >
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender:       "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> > Poster:       Remco Post <r.post AT SARA DOT NL>
> > Subject:      [Very OT] Re: Can we cut out the "me, toos" (was Re: TSM
> >               Presentation)
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------------
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:45:05 +0100
> > Gerhard Rentschler <g.rentschler AT RUS.UNI-STUTTGART DOT DE> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > > probably a change in the listserv config of this mailing
> > list may help.
> > > Each mail I get from this list has the list as reply
> > address. For replying
> > > to the sender you have to cut the mail address from the
> > mail and do a
> > > forward. This is the case at least with Outlook.
> > > It might help a little bit if with "reply to all" I could get both
> > > addresses, the list's and the sender's address. If I want
> > to reply only to
> > > the sender, I could remove the list address.
> > > Best regards
> > > Gerhard
> > >
> >
> > So now the list is at fault when people choose to use e-mail
> > clients that
> > cannot behave. errr. Probably, people should start thinking
> > about to who
> > they send their emails, and what they send. Apart from
> > me-toos, annoying
> > behaviour includes the out-of-office autoreplys (perfreably
> > to the list ;-)
> > and the ~20 line standard disclaimer, which in itself is
> > complete nonsense
> > on any mailinglist, and probably even in normal
> > person-to-person e-mail.
> > Netiquette isn't what it used to be... :-)
> >

Confidentiality Note: The information transmitted is intended only for the
person or entity to whom or which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error,
please delete this material immediately.