dan at spore.ath.cx
Thu Apr 17 19:33:26 BST 2008
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:14:35 -0400
Bart Silverstrim <bsilver at chrononomicon.com> wrote:
> Dan Farrell wrote:
> > 1) most clients are threads-aware
> > (and most archives are, too)
> > 2) the context of the response is usually anticipated from the
> > previous thread
> Wouldn't this be a stronger argument for trimming it out? You're
> saying this is redundant material...
Quite true. The best etiquette rule for emails is proper trimming and
providing text only text that truly needs to be there. With proper
trimming, the long bottom-posted emails would be much less cumbersome.
They still mandate a recap of previous material, but only insomuch as
it is required.
> Also, for short interactions...how do you know how long a
> conversation will go? Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're
> referring to, one simple question about how to stop top-posters has
> obviously ballooned far larger than the OP probably intended it to go.
I agree, and such ballooning is likely to happen on busy lists like
this. Unequivocal bottom posting without proper trimming requires
everyone to read all posts in that balloon -- or at least scroll
through them -- again and again and again.
At least careless top posting avoids that inconvenience.
As many have pointed out, the problem is that many don't care or
haven't taken the time to understand how to properly format emails.
Whether it's top or bottom posted, 'lazy' posting is the _true_ scourge
of mailing lists, IMHO.
More information about the ubuntu-users