| 1 |
On Sunday 30 October 2005 16:30, Richard Fish wrote: |
| 2 |
> But since top-posters are too lazy to scroll to the end of a message, or |
| 3 |
> trim the original before replying, I'm guessing they will be too lazy to |
| 4 |
> follow the link and read the RFC. So I'll quote the relevant section here: |
| 5 |
Personally, I prefer to top-post, but refrain in this context out of respect |
| 6 |
for my fellow admins. However, I don't appreciate being called lazy. If you |
| 7 |
lok up the word lazy, you will see connotations having to do with preferring |
| 8 |
to do less work. You admit, then that top posting involves less work? is |
| 9 |
easier? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> "If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you |
| 12 |
> summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough |
| 13 |
> text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers |
| 14 |
> understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, |
| 15 |
> especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host |
| 16 |
> to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing |
| 17 |
> the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the |
| 18 |
> entire original!" |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
and this has what to do with email? I'm sure in the dark ages of the internet |
| 21 |
when mail was, indeed "proliferated by distributing the postings from one |
| 22 |
host to another" that was a good point. is it still? I've got an idea, |
| 23 |
let's use the bandwidth of the list to help one another, not be miss manners. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> In otherwords..."don't top post and trim your replies". |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> -Richard |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
John Jolet |
| 31 |
Your On-Demand IT Department |
| 32 |
512-762-0729 |
| 33 |
www.jolet.net |
| 34 |
john@×××××.net |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives