| 1 |
Alexander Skwar wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Yep. That's why bullshit like this shouldn't be done. Quotes should |
| 4 |
> be done in the way I do it. Not because I do it (that's no reason), |
| 5 |
> but because that's the way it's been done for a long time and (more) |
| 6 |
> importantly, because it's been proven to be good. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
And the proof is documented: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt, |
| 10 |
section 3.1.1 |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
But since top-posters are too lazy to scroll to the end of a message, or |
| 13 |
trim the original before replying, I'm guessing they will be too lazy to |
| 14 |
follow the link and read the RFC. So I'll quote the relevant section here: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you |
| 17 |
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough |
| 18 |
text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers |
| 19 |
understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, |
| 20 |
especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host |
| 21 |
to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing |
| 22 |
the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the |
| 23 |
entire original!" |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
In otherwords..."don't top post and trim your replies". |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-Richard |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives