On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 06:22 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
Tom -- The observation that someone replied to an earlier message after you have already done so is not sufficient evidence. Have you determined this in some independent fashion?One thought occurred to me after I had sent my last offering.
The PC I use was bought in mid June, and the "commissioning process" of downloading Microsoft 365 included Outlook as an email client. When I looked I found that the default interval between mail downloads from my ISP was set to 30 minutes, which I regard as far too long, so I reset it to 10 minutes.
It is thus quite possible that some of your members have "long" polling intervals set on their email clients, and as a result find a post to which they wish to respond, and set about sending one. Now if that happens during a gap between polls between their email clients and their Service Providers it is entirely possible that your reply to a post happens during that "downtime", in which case their claim that they had not received / read / understood your reply would be perfectly legitimate.
In addition Frances wrote: However I wonder about your terminology. This prompts me to ask if when you wrote The problem is that almost all the users in my group never see my replies in your initial post you meant "never, ever" or really meant "before replying themselves".
If I was of a mischievous disposition I might wonder if some of your members are gaming the system to frustrate your "first reply" policy.