| 1 |
John Jolet wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Sunday 30 October 2005 16:30, Richard Fish wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>But since top-posters are too lazy to scroll to the end of a message, or |
| 7 |
>>trim the original before replying, I'm guessing they will be too lazy to |
| 8 |
>>follow the link and read the RFC. So I'll quote the relevant section here: |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>Personally, I prefer to top-post, but refrain in this context out of respect |
| 12 |
>for my fellow admins. However, I don't appreciate being called lazy. If you |
| 13 |
>lok up the word lazy, you will see connotations having to do with preferring |
| 14 |
>to do less work. You admit, then that top posting involves less work? is |
| 15 |
>easier? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
For the writer, yes. For the reader, no. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
In private and business contexts, I have no problem with top-posting, |
| 22 |
and I do it commonly. In those contexts, it is reasonable to expect |
| 23 |
that every recepient has followed the conversation, and will not be |
| 24 |
confused by a top-posted comment. In fact, I find it easier and faster |
| 25 |
to read top-posted comments in that context, and if you read the RFC |
| 26 |
section on one-to-one communications, you will see that the rules there |
| 27 |
are much more relaxed. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
For a mail list, the context is very different, and top-posting is just |
| 30 |
not appropriate. Remember that the recepient is not just current |
| 31 |
subscribers, but also people who will be searching the archives months |
| 32 |
from now. It is _not_ easier for those recepients to read top-postings. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
>>"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you |
| 35 |
>>summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough |
| 36 |
>>text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers |
| 37 |
>>understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, |
| 38 |
>>especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host |
| 39 |
>>to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing |
| 40 |
>>the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the |
| 41 |
>>entire original!" |
| 42 |
>> |
| 43 |
>> |
| 44 |
>> |
| 45 |
>and this has what to do with email? I'm sure in the dark ages of the internet |
| 46 |
>when mail was, indeed "proliferated by distributing the postings from one |
| 47 |
>host to another" that was a good point. is it still? |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Yes, that part of the RFC seems a bit obsolete, until you again consider |
| 51 |
mail archives. Someone searching the archives may not go immediately to |
| 52 |
the beginning of a thread that they are interested in. This part of the |
| 53 |
RFC is still relevant for them. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
>I've got an idea, |
| 56 |
>let's use the bandwidth of the list to help one another, not be miss manners. |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Agreed. This horse is already dead anyway. :-) |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
-Richard |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives