hello Charlie,
I appreciate this is doing nothing to help Roger with his query, by the
way ...
I agree and understand, however I personally still feel that the
composition technique, as long as it is legible, isn't a significant issue.
Just for the sake of interest, I choose to top-post and include all or
part of the previous email, for these reasons :
1) I feel it is more appropriate to present the reader straight away
with the 'new' content which I am offering in my reply.
2) If the reader feels any interest in putting my reply into context,
they can scroll down and see what I am replying to.
I do however not use top-posting if I am replying to various different
parts of an email, in which case I would use the 'quoting and replying
beneath' technique.
Dare I say it, in those scenarios, I also consider using html and a
slightly different text colour to contrast more clearly with the quoted
original.
It's fair to say I'm not a purist ! ;-)
I am however very interested in making my mail lists as 'neat' as
possible, and I process all plain text mails via Demime pretty much only
to use its 'advertising signature removal' to strip out any pre-existing
list footers. (which are always the same)
I allow html mails and do not Demime them at all, so as not to remove
the author's intended formating.
It's fair to say I'm not a purist ! ;-)
Just my perspective,
Lee
Charlie Summers wrote:
>At 7:40 PM -0500 11/23/05, lee typed:
>
>
>
>>However do you really feel that top-posting is a technique which is bad
>>enough to warrant being bounced?
>>
>>
>
> Absolutely. Top-posting never did make a lick of sense. It encourages
>quoting entire messages (including signatures, footers, etc., etc.) and
>_discourages_ quoting for context only.
>
>
>
>>Or indeed 'too much' quoting?
>>
>>
>
> Lord yes. Over-quoting is the bane of modern maling lists; lok at your
>message,. We all just read Roger's mail, yet you (or more accurately, your
>email client) somehow thought it a good idea to repeat it in its entirety to
>the entire list.
>
> Again, makes no sense, and wastes bandwidth. In this reply, I _only_ quote
>what is relevant to my responses, and no more. The "Q/A" format is easier to
>comprehend, and indeed was THE standard until Microsloth decided with the
>release of Outlook Express many moons ago to encourage sloppiness. (I have
>often wondered if this was just another example of an intentional change to
>convention to show everyone who was boss...)
>
>
>
>>If one or more readers don't personally like an email to be structured
>>in such a way, and actively object to it, I would feel they are petty
>>
>>
>
> You'd really hate my lists as a poster, since the _maintainer_ objects to
>such nonsense and enforces good netiquette. Of course, the vast majority of
>subscribers who are readers and _not_ posters appreciate it, since the s/n
>ratio and comprehendibility is much higher than seeing forwards of signatures
>of forwards of footers of...
>
-
A perfect internet companion: LEE'S FREE MUSIC STATION
<http://uk.music.yahoo.com/lc/?rt=0&rp1=0&rp2=1453474498>
Example recent playlist HERE <http://www.incelsite.com/playlist.gif>
References:
|
|
