Reply to all includes sender in reply.

[Guest6400]

When I click Reply to All in the web client(or Outlook) the sender is also included in the reply. This is using Zimbra 4.5.4_GA_763.RHEL4.


Use Case:

UserA sends me an email that is CCed to UserB. When I click Reply to All, It will send the mail To: UserA, and it will Cc: a copy to Me and UserB.


I found a bug that seems to be the same thing, but it goes all the way back to 2005? I find it hard to believe a bug in something like this wouldn't be a pretty high priority. My users complain about this all the time and it would save them and me some frustration if this was fixed.

http://bugzilla.zimbra.com/show_bug.cgi?id=4286

Thanks a lot for any help!

[phoenix]

Change the option 'If I send a message that I then receive:' to what you want it to do.

[Guest6400]

Well, I've changed it to "Do Not Receive the Message" and it still puts me in the Cc: field.

What version was this bug fixed in? Is the bug I posted not the same as this case?

[Guest6400]

Well, I've tested again by sending an email from an outside address like this:

To: Myself, Coworker
Cc: Another Coworker


When I Reply to All it does the following:

To: Source
Cc: Myself, Coworker, Another Coworker


I have checked that my setting is to "If I send a message that I then receive:
Do not receive the message"


Is there a server setting that I'm missing or another option pertaining to this I'm not seeing? Also note that I'm using Zimbra 4.5.4_GA_763.RHEL4.

[jholder]

Nah, that's a server issue.
I wonder what's causing it. You may want to look at your default Class of Service settings. . but I don't think that's one of them.

Are you a NE customer? If so, and if the above doesn't work, then file a ticket on this and make sure you ask them to cc me on it. I'm interested in seeing what's happening here.

john

[Guest6400]

We are a NE customer, but I'm going to see about getting our network admin to check this out as he has more access to the admin console that myself.

I'll let you know if/how we fixed it. Otherwise I'll file a ticket and we can go from there. Thanks for the help

[stace]

We ran across this, and I believe I've narrowed down the behavior to respecting the Canonical Address field. I've submitted the below bug.

Bug 31421 – Reply All behavior does not respect Canonical Address