How to include Attachement in Reply All?

Hi

If I "reply all", the attachements are not in the outgoing msg.
If I "forward", the attachement is there, but can't reply to all.

Is there any easy way to do both?
(Something like Reply All with Attachement)

Hitesh

Why would you need to Forward All with Attachment?
They all ready have that attachment. If you have made any changes, then
that will be a new attachment.
--
Ronald Sommer

"Hitesh" <> wrote in message
news:F83F1074-5763-4AA2-B807-...
> Hi
>
> If I "reply all", the attachements are not in the outgoing msg.
> If I "forward", the attachement is there, but can't reply to all.
>
> Is there any easy way to do both?
> (Something like Reply All with Attachement)
>
> Hitesh

Because sometimes, an email is sent to 8 or 10 people, and I want to forward
the entire email to an additional no of people and at the same time let the
earlier 8 or 10 people know that they are included....

"Ron Sommer" wrote:

> Why would you need to Forward All with Attachment?
> They all ready have that attachment. If you have made any changes, then
> that will be a new attachment.
> --
> Ronald Sommer
>
> "Hitesh" <> wrote in message
> news:F83F1074-5763-4AA2-B807-...
> > Hi
> >
> > If I "reply all", the attachements are not in the outgoing msg.
> > If I "forward", the attachement is there, but can't reply to all.
> >
> > Is there any easy way to do both?
> > (Something like Reply All with Attachement)
> >
> > Hitesh
>
>

If I was one of the original 8 or 10 recipients, I would be somewhat
perturbed to have the same attachment sent to me again. :-(

--
Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP (WLMail)


"Hitesh" <> wrote in message news00BE9D6-C016-4222-AA7F-...
> Because sometimes, an email is sent to 8 or 10 people, and I want to forward
> the entire email to an additional no of people and at the same time let the
> earlier 8 or 10 people know that they are included....
>
> "Ron Sommer" wrote:
>
>> Why would you need to Forward All with Attachment?
>> They all ready have that attachment. If you have made any changes, then
>> that will be a new attachment.
>> --
>> Ronald Sommer
>>
>> "Hitesh" <> wrote in message
>> news:F83F1074-5763-4AA2-B807-...
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > If I "reply all", the attachements are not in the outgoing msg.
>> > If I "forward", the attachement is there, but can't reply to all.
>> >
>> > Is there any easy way to do both?
>> > (Something like Reply All with Attachement)
>> >
>> > Hitesh
>>
>>

Its amazing how an MVP is more interested in undermining my reasons for
having this feature rather than actually solving it.

If it can't be done, just say that. You don't have to attack it.
Or are you just scoring points for "responding"?
(Hurts, doesn't it?)

I can at least think of 3 other reasons why this would be useful, but
obviously MVPs don't seem to care about it.

:-Grrrrr

Isn't there a rule somewhere that says MVPs should be giving useful responses?

"Gary VanderMolen" wrote:

> If I was one of the original 8 or 10 recipients, I would be somewhat
> perturbed to have the same attachment sent to me again. :-(
>
> --
> Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP (WLMail)
>
>
> "Hitesh" <> wrote in message news00BE9D6-C016-4222-AA7F-...
> > Because sometimes, an email is sent to 8 or 10 people, and I want to forward
> > the entire email to an additional no of people and at the same time let the
> > earlier 8 or 10 people know that they are included....
> >
> > "Ron Sommer" wrote:
> >
> >> Why would you need to Forward All with Attachment?
> >> They all ready have that attachment. If you have made any changes, then
> >> that will be a new attachment.
> >> --
> >> Ronald Sommer
> >>
> >> "Hitesh" <> wrote in message
> >> news:F83F1074-5763-4AA2-B807-...
> >> > Hi
> >> >
> >> > If I "reply all", the attachements are not in the outgoing msg.
> >> > If I "forward", the attachement is there, but can't reply to all.
> >> >
> >> > Is there any easy way to do both?
> >> > (Something like Reply All with Attachement)
> >> >
> >> > Hitesh
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

Lighten up, Hitesh.
In order to fully explore an issue, it is often relevant to explore both
the pros and the cons. I meant no personal affront.

--
Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP (WLMail)


"Hitesh" <> wrote in message news:9F9F1E76-DB34-42A8-9B64-...
> Its amazing how an MVP is more interested in undermining my reasons for
> having this feature rather than actually solving it.
>
> If it can't be done, just say that. You don't have to attack it.
> Or are you just scoring points for "responding"?
> (Hurts, doesn't it?)
>
> I can at least think of 3 other reasons why this would be useful, but
> obviously MVPs don't seem to care about it.
>
> :-Grrrrr
>
> Isn't there a rule somewhere that says MVPs should be giving useful responses?
>
> "Gary VanderMolen" wrote:
>
>> If I was one of the original 8 or 10 recipients, I would be somewhat
>> perturbed to have the same attachment sent to me again. :-(
>>
>> --
>> Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP (WLMail)
>>
>>
>> "Hitesh" <> wrote in message news00BE9D6-C016-4222-AA7F-...
>> > Because sometimes, an email is sent to 8 or 10 people, and I want to forward
>> > the entire email to an additional no of people and at the same time let the
>> > earlier 8 or 10 people know that they are included....
>> >
>> > "Ron Sommer" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why would you need to Forward All with Attachment?
>> >> They all ready have that attachment. If you have made any changes, then
>> >> that will be a new attachment.
>> >> --
>> >> Ronald Sommer
>> >>
>> >> "Hitesh" <> wrote in message
>> >> news:F83F1074-5763-4AA2-B807-...
>> >> > Hi
>> >> >
>> >> > If I "reply all", the attachements are not in the outgoing msg.
>> >> > If I "forward", the attachement is there, but can't reply to all.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is there any easy way to do both?
>> >> > (Something like Reply All with Attachement)
>> >> >
>> >> > Hitesh

There is no solution. It is what it is. There is certainly some truth and possibly wider than your expectation to receiving
redundant attachment nearly duplicate emails.

If and when you find a workaround, many would be appreciative of a return comment.

--
...winston
ms-mvp windowsmail


"Hitesh" <> wrote in message news:9F9F1E76-DB34-42A8-9B64-...
Its amazing how an MVP is more interested in undermining my reasons for
having this feature rather than actually solving it.

If it can't be done, just say that. You don't have to attack it.
Or are you just scoring points for "responding"?
(Hurts, doesn't it?)

I can at least think of 3 other reasons why this would be useful, but
obviously MVPs don't seem to care about it.

:-Grrrrr

Isn't there a rule somewhere that says MVPs should be giving useful responses?

"Gary VanderMolen" wrote:

> If I was one of the original 8 or 10 recipients, I would be somewhat
> perturbed to have the same attachment sent to me again. :-(
>
> --
> Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP (WLMail)
>
>
> "Hitesh" <> wrote in message news00BE9D6-C016-4222-AA7F-...
> > Because sometimes, an email is sent to 8 or 10 people, and I want to forward
> > the entire email to an additional no of people and at the same time let the
> > earlier 8 or 10 people know that they are included....
> >
> > "Ron Sommer" wrote:
> >
> >> Why would you need to Forward All with Attachment?
> >> They all ready have that attachment. If you have made any changes, then
> >> that will be a new attachment.
> >> --
> >> Ronald Sommer
> >>
> >> "Hitesh" <> wrote in message
> >> news:F83F1074-5763-4AA2-B807-...
> >> > Hi
> >> >
> >> > If I "reply all", the attachements are not in the outgoing msg.
> >> > If I "forward", the attachement is there, but can't reply to all.
> >> >
> >> > Is there any easy way to do both?
> >> > (Something like Reply All with Attachement)
> >> >
> >> > Hitesh
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

I would like to hear more reasons why it would be useful.
I can't think of any.
You haven't mentioned a size for the attachment. Hopefully, it is not very
big.
Besides sending an attachment to people who have already received it, when
you use Reply the addresses are put in the To field.
--
Ronald Sommer

"Hitesh" <> wrote in message
news:9F9F1E76-DB34-42A8-9B64-...
> Its amazing how an MVP is more interested in undermining my reasons for
> having this feature rather than actually solving it.
>
> If it can't be done, just say that. You don't have to attack it.
> Or are you just scoring points for "responding"?
> (Hurts, doesn't it?)
>
> I can at least think of 3 other reasons why this would be useful, but
> obviously MVPs don't seem to care about it.
>
> :-Grrrrr
>
> Isn't there a rule somewhere that says MVPs should be giving useful
> responses?
>
> "Gary VanderMolen" wrote:
>
>> If I was one of the original 8 or 10 recipients, I would be somewhat
>> perturbed to have the same attachment sent to me again. :-(
>>
>> --
>> Gary VanderMolen, MS-MVP (WLMail)
>>
>>
>> "Hitesh" <> wrote in message
>> news00BE9D6-C016-4222-AA7F-...
>> > Because sometimes, an email is sent to 8 or 10 people, and I want to
>> > forward
>> > the entire email to an additional no of people and at the same time let
>> > the
>> > earlier 8 or 10 people know that they are included....
>> >
>> > "Ron Sommer" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why would you need to Forward All with Attachment?
>> >> They all ready have that attachment. If you have made any changes,
>> >> then
>> >> that will be a new attachment.
>> >> --
>> >> Ronald Sommer
>> >>
>> >> "Hitesh" <> wrote in message
>> >> news:F83F1074-5763-4AA2-B807-...
>> >> > Hi
>> >> >
>> >> > If I "reply all", the attachements are not in the outgoing msg.
>> >> > If I "forward", the attachement is there, but can't reply to all.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is there any easy way to do both?
>> >> > (Something like Reply All with Attachement)
>> >> >
>> >> > Hitesh
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>

I actually found this thread while googling for the exact same question.

It happens a lot where maybe someone sends an e-mail to the wrong person, so what I would like to do is forward the e-mail to the correct contact, and CC the original recipients so that they understand what is happening.

It usually takes multiple steps I usually click the FWD and also click reply all then copy and paste the addresses into the FWD message. \

A "FWD All" feature ("Pass-the-buck" feature?) is also more conductive to the modern notion of grouping e-mails into "conversations" like gmail does. That way I am not forwarding the e-mail and continuing the conversation while involved parties are uninformed.

I actually found this thread while googling for the exact same question.

It happens a lot where maybe someone sends an e-mail to the wrong person, so what I would like to do is forward the e-mail to the correct contact, and CC the original recipients so that they understand what is happening.

It usually takes multiple steps I usually click the FWD and also click reply all then copy and paste the addresses into the FWD message. \

A "FWD All" feature ("Pass-the-buck" feature?) is also more conductive to the modern notion of grouping e-mails into "conversations" like gmail does. That way I am not forwarding the e-mail and continuing the conversation while involved parties are uninformed.