RE: [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Request to truncate replied to postings (ex Re: Hello)

["Andy Gulliver" <andy.gulliver@crossprod.co.uk>]

No... every message sent out has the standard text with subscribe details
etc. appended by the listserver.

If someone replies without first deleting this, then their reply will be
posted to the list with two copies... and so on.

FYI there is a free add-on for Outlook which I use to trim ad.s off egroups
mailings, which could be useful here as well.  It's at
http://www.shareware.dabsol.co.uk/trimmer/

Regards

Andy Gulliver

> -----Original Message-----
> From: TSListServer [mailto:owner-proteledausers@techservinc.com]On
> Behalf Of Bruce Walter
> Sent: 18 October 2000 16:02
> To: Multiple recipients of list proteledausers
> Subject: RE: [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Request to truncate replied to postings
> (ex Re: Hello)
>
>
> I take it you mean that 'Hello' appeared six times in the subject line.
>
> I don't know about other users, but I just re-checked my 'deleted items'
> folder, and found no repeats in the subject line.
>
> I'm using Office 2000 (Outlook 2000) on W2K.  Maybe something in your mail
> delivery path is the culprit.
>
> Anybody else experience this phenomenon?  If so, what software do you use?
> Maybe we can detect a pattern....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Harland [mailto:gharland@ingenico.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 7:41 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list proteledausers
> Subject: [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Request to truncate replied to postings (ex
> Re: Hello)
>
> The above posting, which I am responding to, has possibly set a
> new record.
> Before I purged them, it contained *six* copies of the tail
> message that is
> appended to every posting that is sent to this forum. (I have seen four
> copies of this message on assorted occasions, and perhaps even five less
> frequently, but that message really stood out.)
>
> It would not be devoid of merit if this mailing list's Server had a script
> to detect and then purge all copies of this tail message before incoming
> posts were despatched (so that the posting received by members never had
> more than the one tail message which is appended to all
> postings). But until
> such a time, I for one (and I am sure many others as well) would
> appreciate
> it if culling of unwanted and unneeded material occurred in the event that
> you are responding to a previous posting. Bandwidth is less of an issue
> these days than was the case previously (or at least for most email
> messages), but it would still be good to have less unnecessary
> text to wade
> through when reading the contents of postings...
>
> Regards,
> Geoff Harland.
>