C
colettey29
When I reply to someone, I would like the attachment that they sent me to be
included in the message... how do I set this up? THANKS!!
included in the message... how do I set this up? THANKS!!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
F
F. H. Muffman
colettey29 said:When I reply to someone, I would like the attachment that they sent me to
be
included in the message... how do I set this up? THANKS!!
Re-attach it, or drag and drop it from the original message, or forward it
rather than reply.
Why do you want to send the attachment back? They sent it to you, they
should have it already. Did you make edits to the attachment?
C
colettey29
I'm replying to the originator as well as cc'ing a few others who need the
attachment.
attachment.
V
VanguardLH
in message
Why do you feel compelled to bloat your reply by including an
attachment that the sender obviously already has because they sent it
to you? They already have the file. Why do you need to give them
another copy of it?
When I reply to someone, I would like the attachment that they sent
me to be
included in the message... how do I set this up? THANKS!!
Why do you feel compelled to bloat your reply by including an
attachment that the sender obviously already has because they sent it
to you? They already have the file. Why do you need to give them
another copy of it?
V
VanguardLH
colettey29 said:I'm replying to the originator as well as cc'ing a few others who
need the
attachment.
Then forward instead of replying. You specify the additional
recipients in the forwarded copy of the original message plus you can
add the originator, too.
A
ajsiko
I find it interesting that all the threads on this subject question the need
to send back an attachment, since they assume that the originator already has
it. By this same logic, there is no need to 'Include original message text'
in replies, but this is certainly a widely accepted practice as it keeps the
entire e-mail chain intact.
Isn't the same benefit realized by keeping any associated files attached?
The issue of attachment size is moot if you delete the original e-mails when
the replies make them redundant.
to send back an attachment, since they assume that the originator already has
it. By this same logic, there is no need to 'Include original message text'
in replies, but this is certainly a widely accepted practice as it keeps the
entire e-mail chain intact.
Isn't the same benefit realized by keeping any associated files attached?
The issue of attachment size is moot if you delete the original e-mails when
the replies make them redundant.
B
Brian Tillman
ajsiko said:I find it interesting that all the threads on this subject question
the need to send back an attachment, since they assume that the
originator already has it.
That's not an assumption, it's a fact.
By this same logic, there is no need to
'Include original message text' in replies, but this is certainly a
widely accepted practice as it keeps the entire e-mail chain intact.
One should always judiciously cut irrelevant portions of prior messages when
replying.
Isn't the same benefit realized by keeping any associated files
attached?
No, because the attachment isn't changing.
A
ajsiko
There are many situations in my profession where this would be considered
unacceptable, and perhaps unethical.
unacceptable, and perhaps unethical.
B
Brian Tillman
ajsiko said:There are many situations in my profession where this would be
considered unacceptable, and perhaps unethical.
Sorry, I don't buy that. Unethical? Describe one situation where it would
be unethical to include only a portion of a message to which you reply.
Which ethic would you use to judge that?
F
F. H. Muffman
Brian Tillman said:Sorry, I don't buy that. Unethical? Describe one situation where it
would be unethical to include only a portion of a message to which you
reply. Which ethic would you use to judge that?
Well.... if you were to remove a single word, *that* could be unethical.
Like, say, removing the word 'not' from 'We are not going to accept the
offer.'
And yes, I know that's a really stupid situation, but it does meet the
qualification of including 'only a portion of the message' =)
B
Brian Tillman
F. H. Muffman said:Well.... if you were to remove a single word, *that* could be
unethical. Like, say, removing the word 'not' from 'We are not going
to accept the offer.'
And yes, I know that's a really stupid situation, but it does meet the
qualification of including 'only a portion of the message' =)
While I agree with you in your example, I hope you understand that's not
what I meant and certainly doesn't conform with my statement "one should
always judiciously cut irrelevant portions of prior messages when replying,"
"irrelevant" being the key word. Clearly your example does not match that
condition.
A
ajsiko
I work for a multinational conglomerate that has gone to great lengths to
impress upon its employees that all communication, no matter how trivial, can
have implications regarding product liability and contractual obligations.
As silly as it sounds, they presented a real-world case study whereby an
engineer's sketch on a napkin was pertinent in a liability proceeding.
I understand that that's an extreme example, however, we recently went
through a several month period during which we weren't even allowed the
option to 'Empty Deleted Items' while a case involving a different division
in a different country were resolved. While it would be impossible for me to
bring you into my world to adequately devise a scenario that exemplifies my
'unethical' comment, my point is that I'm not going to take the chance that
my 'judicious cutting' will be construed by all to be an example of e-mail
efficiency versus a conscious attempt to change the meaning of the prior
correspondence.
All of this still misses the real point. For me, having an intact string of
replies, complete with the original attachment is the most effective way to
review, process and archive long correspondence. Apparently, from the many
hits I found on this topic, other users have their own reasons for desiring a
'Reply with Attachment' option. However, rather than acknowledge and
possibly consider this option, all of the replies that I found chose to
debate the user regarding the 'correct' way of using the program.
impress upon its employees that all communication, no matter how trivial, can
have implications regarding product liability and contractual obligations.
As silly as it sounds, they presented a real-world case study whereby an
engineer's sketch on a napkin was pertinent in a liability proceeding.
I understand that that's an extreme example, however, we recently went
through a several month period during which we weren't even allowed the
option to 'Empty Deleted Items' while a case involving a different division
in a different country were resolved. While it would be impossible for me to
bring you into my world to adequately devise a scenario that exemplifies my
'unethical' comment, my point is that I'm not going to take the chance that
my 'judicious cutting' will be construed by all to be an example of e-mail
efficiency versus a conscious attempt to change the meaning of the prior
correspondence.
All of this still misses the real point. For me, having an intact string of
replies, complete with the original attachment is the most effective way to
review, process and archive long correspondence. Apparently, from the many
hits I found on this topic, other users have their own reasons for desiring a
'Reply with Attachment' option. However, rather than acknowledge and
possibly consider this option, all of the replies that I found chose to
debate the user regarding the 'correct' way of using the program.
B
Brian Tillman
ajsiko said:However, rather than acknowledge and possibly consider this option,
all of the replies that I found chose to debate the user regarding
the 'correct' way of using the program.
What you state here indicates to me that you think people in this newsgroup
are in a position to "consider this option". Sorry, but none of us works
for Microsoft.
F
F. H. Muffman
Brian Tillman said:While I agree with you in your example, I hope you understand that's not
what I meant and certainly doesn't conform with my statement "one should
always judiciously cut irrelevant portions of prior messages when
replying," "irrelevant" being the key word. Clearly your example does not
match that condition.
Well, if I want to believe they accepted the offer, 'not' is irrelevant to
me =)
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.