On 8/3/11 3:01 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
*ANY* situation where the elapsed time between messages is longer than the
recipient's ability to retain the 'frame of reference' (i.e., the previous
message) in memory, it _is_ harder for the recipient of the message to follow
top-posted content than
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 06:50:04PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Kailash Kailash wrote:
Woj, I'm really surprised that you, of all people, seem lately to have
been converted to the Micro$oft Outlock-trained style of
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 02:52:34PM -0500, Doug Lee wrote:
I don't either, but I will provide a different data point: Blind
listers, myself included, must generally read through posts
sequentially, as it is usually trickier to skip reliably through
quotes to the new material when using
From: Ian Smith smi...@nimnet.asn.au
[snip]
Woj, I'm really surprised that you, of all people, seem lately to have
been converted to the Micro$oft Outlock-trained style of top-posting,
including tail-quoting all sorts irrelevant and repeated trailers etc,
after years of your (almost
5) The use of HTML mail in a mail forum is absurd; however, it is commonly done
(GMail).
this is a problem - as GMail and similar things itself.
6) One of my 'Pet Peeves: Morons who change a thread's subject rather than
start a new one.
was me sometimes by accident, but i do care now not
On Thursday 19 February 2009 05:06:15 GESBBB wrote:
4) The insertion of legally unenforceable disclaimers, etc. is another big
waste of space.
And not always under the control of sender, through the creative use of
outgoing mailfilters.
--
Mel
Problem with today's modular software: they
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Kailash Kailash wrote:
Woj, I'm really surprised that you, of all people, seem lately to have
been converted to the Micro$oft Outlock-trained style of top-posting,
including tail-quoting all sorts irrelevant and repeated trailers etc,
after years of your (almost too- :)
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Kailash Kailash wrote:
Woj, I'm really surprised that you, of all people, seem lately to have
been converted to the Micro$oft Outlock-trained style of top-posting,
including tail-quoting all sorts irrelevant and
On November 25, 2007 at 09:49PM Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
[ snip ]
The footnote was easy to understand after a quick Wikipedia search:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting#Top-posting
Quoting the text (so list members don't have to actually repeat the
search):
Some maintain that
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 02:52:06PM +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote:
It should be easy in mailing-lists to block mails of top-posters.
It would also probably be prone to false positive errors.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
McCloctnick the Lucid: The first rule of magic
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 10:48:38AM -0800, David Benfell wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:31:51 -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
We have adults who can't be bothered to tell the difference
between lose and loose in writing. Wonderful things encouraged by people
justifying their lazy writing
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 10:22:50AM +1300, Brent Jones wrote:
I find that top-posting really makes it difficult to follow the flow of a
discussion. I especially find it difficult when someone engages in TOFU
[1] posting, because when I try to check context there's a gawdawful
lengthy blob of
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 06:56:15PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
I think it's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem: we don't really know for
sure whether TOFU[1] posting spurred much of the rise of illiteracy or
the increase of relative illiteracy on the Internet led to an increase in
TOFU posting.
On 2007-11-25 19:01, Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 06:56:15PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
I think it's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem: we don't really know for
sure whether TOFU[1] posting spurred much of the rise of illiteracy or
the increase of relative
Hi,
Brent Jones wrote:
Sorry if this is a bit off topic for this list, but it seem to be a
comment that comes up very regularly; please don't top post...
at least, you make me understand what this means.
Yes, it is stupid to avoid top posting as they save a lot of time as
long as it is
On 2007-11-23 21:58, David Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 22, 2007, at 9:10 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
Understood from that perspective, perhaps you can see why people
might dislike top posting.
Many here (and elsewhere) will not reply to a top-poster.
I am one of these people.
If I see
David Benfell wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:31:51 -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
We have adults who can't be bothered to tell the difference
between lose and loose in writing. Wonderful things encouraged by people
justifying their lazy writing styles.
This might be slightly unfair.
A
On Nov 22, 2007, at 9:10 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
Understood from that perspective, perhaps you can see why people
might dislike top posting.
When asking a favor of another, a wise man would not offend his
potential helper. Many here (and elsewhere) will not reply to a top-
poster. You
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:31:51 -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
We have adults who can't be bothered to tell the difference
between lose and loose in writing. Wonderful things encouraged by people
justifying their lazy writing styles.
This might be slightly unfair.
A large proportion of the
Robert Huff wrote:
Bart Silverstrim writes:
You're right in that top posting is a savings in effort.
I disagree. It's not a savings, it's a transfer - moves the
work from the poster to the reader.
Okay, I'll qualify my statement by saying it is a time and effort saver
for
Bart Silverstrim writes:
You're right in that top posting is a savings in effort.
I disagree. It's not a savings, it's a transfer - moves the
work from the poster to the reader. Make that readers, because
/every single reader/ has been imposed on to expend the effort.
Looked
El día Friday, November 23, 2007 a las 08:05:59AM -0500, Bill Moran escribió:
There are three reasons _not_ to top-post and to post inline, trimming
your response intelligently:
1) Top-posting does not scale up to large, complex emails. It produces
incomprehensible responses when the
Brent Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I for one prefer top posting, as usually I have read a particular thread
enough times that I like to cut to the chase and read the new input
without having to scroll down, sometimes navigating an endless nesting
of For me, reading through top posted
Brent Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I for one prefer top posting, as usually I have read a particular thread
http://www.asciiartfarts.com/20011201.html
HTH, HAND
--
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.datadok.no/
Brent Jones wrote:
I for one prefer top posting, as usually I have read a particular thread
enough times that I like to cut to the chase and read the new input
without having to scroll down, sometimes navigating an endless nesting
of For me, reading through top posted replies saves time and
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:22:50 +1300, Brent Jones wrote:
Sorry if this is a bit off topic for this list, but it seem to be a
comment that comes up very regularly; please don't top post...
I for one prefer top posting
This has been hashed out on so many technically-oriented lists, that
it
Understood from that perspective, perhaps you can see why people might
dislike top posting.
Rather, your entire response is at the top, separating itself from the
context to which it refers.
Furthermore, it can be very confusing to understand precisely what you're
referring to, because your
On Thursday 22 November 2007 21:22:50 Brent Jones wrote:
Sorry if this is a bit off topic for this list, but it seem to be a
comment that comes up very regularly; please don't top post...
I for one prefer top posting, as usually I have read a particular thread
enough times that I like to cut
(Moved to freebsd-chat where it belongs.)
On Nov 22, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Brent Jones wrote:
I for one prefer top posting, as usually I have read a particular
thread
enough times that I like to cut to the chase and read the new input
without having to scroll down, sometimes navigating an
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:22:50 +1300
Brent Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry if this is a bit off topic for this list, but it seem to be a
comment that comes up very regularly; please don't top post...
I for one prefer top posting, as usually I have read a particular
thread enough times
hay enough of this BS about top posting. You have to wake up to the
fact there are many people who belong to this list who are not UNIX
bigots. Us win/outlook people have just as much right to post as the
rest of you. And more to the point who the hell pointed this new
comer of just 10 days
hay enough of this BS about top posting. You have to wake up to the
fact there are many people who belong to this list who are not UNIX
bigots.
No top posting has been the rule for the list for a long time - since
the beginning as far as I know.The rule has nothing to do with UNIX.
On Saturday 28 May 2005 06:42, the author [EMAIL PROTECTED] contributed to
the dialogue on RE: Top Posting (was: [Freebsd 5.4 not finding my NIC]):
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Vizion
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:17 PM
Cc: freebsd
someone wrote:
Think about the effect of long paragraphs and then having to move
backwards and forwards and you read one paragraph downwards and
then are
foprced to move upwards to read the subsequent posting
Tha means scanning and rescanning.
Top posting is neither sensible or
On Saturday 28 May 2005 09:28, the author Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
contributed to the dialogue on Re: Top Posting (was: [Freebsd 5.4 not
finding my NIC]):
someone wrote:
Think about the effect of long paragraphs and then having to move
backwards and forwards and you read one paragraph
Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 August 2004 at 14:58:02 -0700, Kevin Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, JJB wrote:
The fact of life is all the Unix mail clients adhere to the Unix
email format of posting the reply to the bottom of the email while
indenting with a quote character.
Not
Chris wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Tuesday, August 10, 2004 05:45:58 PM -0400 JJB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Over the years I have seen many posts on this list where Unix hard
liners complain about people posting their replies to the top of the
email messages on this list.
The fact of life is
On Aug 10, 2004, at 6:25 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
Here's a good reason to top-post: I'm referring to the message as a
whole, rather than to the content.
What reference to a whole? Whole what?
This message came in while I was writing my previous message in this
thread. It shows *exactly*
(This message is also located at the bottom of the message, and also
in-line)
[top post]
Oh boy, am I tired of this discussion that in some kind of nature law
must pop up every three or four month.
| Here's a good reason to top-post: I'm referring to the message as
a
| whole, rather
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:45:58 -0400, JJB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Over the years I have seen many posts on this list where Unix hard
liners complain about people posting their replies to the top of the
email messages on this list.
The fact of life is all the Unix mail clients adhere to the
On Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:24:24 PM Bart Silverstrim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 08:45:13 -0400
|From: Bart Silverstrim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: Top posting solution
|To: FreeBSD Questions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Content-Type: text
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, JJB wrote:
The fact of life is all the Unix mail clients adhere to the Unix
email format of posting the reply to the bottom of the email while
indenting with a quote character.
Not true. Pine doesn't, for example. It begins a reply with the cursor
at the very top of the
--On Tuesday, August 10, 2004 05:45:58 PM -0400 JJB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Over the years I have seen many posts on this list where Unix hard
liners complain about people posting their replies to the top of the
email messages on this list.
The fact of life is all the Unix mail clients adhere
On Tuesday, 10 August 2004 at 14:58:02 -0700, Kevin Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, JJB wrote:
The fact of life is all the Unix mail clients adhere to the Unix
email format of posting the reply to the bottom of the email while
indenting with a quote character.
Not true. Pine doesn't,
Hi Paul,
--On Tuesday, August 10, 2004 5:13 PM -0500 Paul Schmehl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I'm trying to think why someone would be posting to a freebsd list
from a Windows box
Because some of us are working in part on building / servicing a
predominantly Windows network during the day,
Here's a good reason to top-post: I'm referring to the message as a
whole, rather than to the content.
This message came in while I was writing my previous message in this
thread. It shows *exactly* the points I was referring to. Yes, the
reply is posted at the bottom, but the quoted text is
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Tuesday, August 10, 2004 05:45:58 PM -0400 JJB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Over the years I have seen many posts on this list where Unix hard
liners complain about people posting their replies to the top of the
email messages on this list.
The fact of life is all the Unix
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, JJB wrote:
So your a hard core purest on the other side of the coin.
You know absolutely nothing about my position on this subject other than
what you infer from the formatting of the posts I've made. The fact that
I reject specious argument from incorrect facts is
On Aug 10, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
It would actually be much nicer if people would return to literacy
standards that existed, not only in the computer world, before
Microsoft came along. I've long given up actively trying to help
people write literate mail. I just ignore
On Aug 10, 2004, at 4:58 PM, Kevin Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, JJB wrote:
The fact of life is all the Unix mail clients adhere to the Unix
email format of posting the reply to the bottom of the email while
indenting with a quote character.
Not true. Pine doesn't, for example. It begins a
On 2004-08-10 18:14, JJB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, JJB wrote:
The fact of life is all the Unix mail clients adhere to the Unix
email format of posting the reply to the bottom of the email
while
indenting with a quote character.
Not true.
CRAP. HERE WE GO AGAIN.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JJB
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 4:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ORG
Subject: Top posting solution
Over the years I have seen many posts on this list where Unix
hard
regarding quoting
and wrapping the text is clearly visible...
it's not a fix :-(
Giorgos-- it would be reasonable to assume that JJB was using the tool he
speaks of, only that would not be correct; oe-quotefix doesn't work with
Outlook itself:
] From: JJB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] Subject: RE: Top posting
itself:
] From: JJB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] Subject: RE: Top posting solution
] Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
] X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
[ Only someone condemned to support Windows users would want
doesn't work with Outlook itself:
] From: JJB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] Subject: RE: Top posting solution
] Message-id:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
] X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
] X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
[ Only someone condemned to support
At 07:54 on Monday, 22 Mar 2004, Chris Pressey wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:50:14 -0500
Denny Jodeit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It boils down to a 'When in Rome, do as Romans do' situation. The
charter states no top posting.
I made sure to re-read the list charter when this thread started. I
On Mar 22, 2004, at 00:13, Tony Crockford wrote:
At 07:54 on Monday, 22 Mar 2004, Chris Pressey wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:50:14 -0500
Denny Jodeit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It boils down to a 'When in Rome, do as Romans do' situation. The
charter states no top posting.
I made sure to re-read
On Mar 21, 2004, at 7:35 PM, Lucas Holt wrote:
Aside from mailing lists, I tend to be a top poster. I don't like
when people leave the last 12 emails and then bottom post.. i have to
scroll all day.
They should, in my opinion, delete extraneous stuff that doesn't have
anything to do with the
On 2004-03-21T23:26:47-0700, Rob M wrote:
Forgive me if I am out of line here. I am new to FreeBSD and this list, I
have been using both for about a week now after being with Windows since 3.1.
Welcome!
I have always been a top poster and a bottom feeder, I have never known it
was a big
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:40:25 +1030
Greg 'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heh. That's human nature. To quote:
What is actually happening, I am afraid, is that we all tell each
other and ourselves that software engineering techniques should be
improved considerably, because
Forgive me if I am out of line here. I am new to FreeBSD and this list, I
have been using both for about a week now after being with Windows since 3.1.
I have always been a top poster and a bottom feeder, I have never known it
was a big deal and every environment I have been in has top
At 2004-03-22T02:34:36Z, Greg 'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm missing something here. Top posting, interleaved posting and bottom
posting are not a function of the MUA, they're a function of the human
making a conscious decision how to write a message. What do *you* mean?
On 3/21/2004 10:26 PM Rob M wrote:
Forgive me if I am out of line here. I am new to FreeBSD and this list, I
have been using both for about a week now after being with Windows since 3.1.
I have always been a top poster and a bottom feeder, I have never known it
was a big deal and every
At 09:09 22/03/2004 -0500, Jerry McAllister wrote:
When you are posting to a list, there is a time lag and a distance that
needs to be overcome. It is similar, but not quite the same as a face
to face conversation. Retaining relevant material and interspersing
responses comes as close to a
When you are posting to a list, there is a time lag and a distance that
needs to be overcome.
...
I'm more of a lurker on the questions list, although I chime in when I see
something I can help with. I've been reading this through and I don't
think anybody has pointed out one
Rob wrote:
As for MUA... My ex-employer (anybody want an IT support/installation
engineer in the UK?) decided to move everybody and all our clients to
MS Outlook and Exchange. Because that's what people want.
Gotta love PHB's!
And that's another topic
But not much of one.
KDK
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 12:13:49PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
[Format *not* recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html]
RFC 1855 violation.
On Saturday, 20 March 2004 at 20:53:18 +0100, Alex de Kruijff wrote:
So far I only see argument agains top-posting.
Why
Aside from mailing lists, I tend to be a top poster. I don't like when
people leave the last 12 emails and then bottom post.. i have to
scroll all day. The other irritant is people who actually post in the
middle of messages. That breaks the FLOW as well. After someone
replies top or
On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 19:35:48 -0500, Lucas Holt wrote:
Aside from mailing lists, I tend to be a top poster. I don't like
when people leave the last 12 emails and then bottom post..
Bottom posting, where you leave the entire previous message, is only
marginally better than top posting.
The following message is the second in a series of three, intended to
show why top-posting is bad. See the previous message (Message ID
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) for a version that I
consider understandable.
Bottom posting, where you leave the entire previous message, is only
marginally better than top
The following message is the second in a series of three, intended to
show why bottom-posting (where a reply is completely separate from the
original message) is bad. See the first message (Message ID
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) for a version that I
consider understandable.
On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at
On Monday, 22 March 2004 at 11:13:37 +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 19:35:48 -0500, Lucas Holt wrote:
Aside from mailing lists, I tend to be a top poster. I don't like
when people leave the last 12 emails and then bottom post..
Bottom posting, where you leave
Bottom posting, where you leave the entire previous message, is only
marginally better than top posting.
If the text is important, you should be reading it. If it isn't, the
sender shouldn't have included it.
On the contrary, it shows you what the discussion is about. In this
example, I'm
Lucas Holt wrote:
Aside from mailing lists, I tend to be a top poster. I don't like
when people leave the last 12 emails and then bottom post.. i have to
scroll all day. The other irritant is people who actually post in the
middle of messages. That breaks the FLOW as well. After someone
uidzero wrote:
What's wrong with the convention we have? I'll answer this message a
third time in the style you propose. Tell me if it's easier to read.
This one just gets too long after a thread of 5 or more. I can relate
to the others but, I just don't read any of the thread to start with
So unix mail clients bottom post by design and MS/outlook tops
posts by design.
So is there some MS/Outlook config option to change it to bottom
post?
DO Unix mail clients have some option to config them to top post?
SO here we are right back at the starting point.
The 2 different groups have to
... both top and bottom ...
All this talk of top and bottom is making me blush and breathe heavy,
LOL (j/k). :-)
Perhaps this dead horse has been sufficiently beaten, that we can let it
Rest In Peace, and move on? :-)
-ste
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html]
Long/short syndrome.
On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 20:09:17 -0500, JJB wrote:
So unix mail clients bottom post by design and MS/outlook tops
posts by design.
No, that's not a question of design: it's the way you use them.
On 03/21/04 08:17 PM, Shaun T. Erickson sat at the `puter and typed:
... both top and bottom ...
All this talk of top and bottom is making me blush and breathe heavy,
LOL (j/k). :-)
ROFL. Thank you dearly. That one comment has just made this whole
thread worthwhile!
Perhaps this dead
Hi JJB,
--On Sunday, March 21, 2004 8:09 PM -0500 JJB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is there some MS/Outlook config option to change it to bottom
post?
Outlook fix http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/
OE fix http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
--
Gary
Top posting is irritating. So is scrolling through 20Mb of unedited text
to get to a one line response, which is often Yes, I've seen this too.
Spelling flames are irritating too. And the most irritating of all is
reading messages on a mailing list which deal only with issues of
netiquette.
What
On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 20:44:12 -0500, Scott Ballantyne wrote:
Top posting is irritating. So is scrolling through 20Mb of unedited text
to get to a one line response, which is often Yes, I've seen this too.
Spelling flames are irritating too. And the most irritating of all is
reading
At 2004-03-22T01:23:45Z, Greg 'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DO Unix mail clients have some option to config them to top post?
No.
Kmail, for one, offers that as an option. I started doing that at work
after my boss explained that interleaved-trimmed posting is difficult to
read.
On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 20:27:57 -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote:
At 2004-03-22T01:23:45Z, Greg 'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DO Unix mail clients have some option to config them to top post?
No.
Kmail, for one, offers that as an option. I started doing that at work
after my
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:04:36 +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 20:27:57 -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote:
At 2004-03-22T01:23:45Z, Greg 'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
I think the main difference between top- and interleaved-posting is
On 2004-03-21T19:33:58-0600, Gary wrote:
Hi JJB,
--On Sunday, March 21, 2004 8:09 PM -0500 JJB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is there some MS/Outlook config option to change it to bottom
post?
Outlook fix http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/
OE fix
On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 22:41:12 -0500, Jud wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:04:36 +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 20:27:57 -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote:
At 2004-03-22T01:23:45Z, Greg 'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
I think the
On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 22:54:56 -0500, Michael W. Oliver wrote:
On 2004-03-21T19:33:58-0600, Gary wrote:
Hi JJB,
--On Sunday, March 21, 2004 8:09 PM -0500 JJB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is there some MS/Outlook config option to change it to bottom
post?
Outlook fix
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 03:40:25PM +1030 or thereabouts, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
On Sunday, 21 March 2004 at 22:54:56 -0500, Michael W. Oliver wrote:
On 2004-03-21T19:33:58-0600, Gary wrote:
--On Sunday, March 21, 2004 8:09 PM -0500 JJB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is there some
On Sunday 21 March 2004 08:46 pm, you wrote:
On Sun, 2004-03-21 at 21:01, Eric F Crist wrote:
Also, it's nice to see some people who don't post a whole lot speak up
about something. To all those, welcome!
That's rather the problem. People who don't know much about unix are
perfectly
Forgive me if I am out of line here. I am new to FreeBSD and this list, I
have been using both for about a week now after being with Windows since 3.1.
I have always been a top poster and a bottom feeder, I have never known it
was a big deal and every environment I have been in has top
Forgive me if I am out of line here. I am new to FreeBSD and this list, I
have been using both for about a week now after being with Windows since
3.1.
I have always been a top poster and a bottom feeder, I have never known it
was a big deal and every environment I have been in has top
On Monday 22 March 2004 12:50 am, Denny Jodeit wrote:
Forgive me if I am out of line here. I am new to FreeBSD and this list,
I have been using both for about a week now after being with Windows
since
3.1.
I have always been a top poster and a bottom feeder, I have never known
it was
On Sunday 21 March 2004 11:50 pm, Denny Jodeit wrote:
It boils down to a 'When in Rome, do as Romans do' situation. The charter
states no top posting. I don't think it could be stated or explained any
simpler.
And this is why I did not just blurt it all out at the top of my message. I
am
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:50:14 -0500
Denny Jodeit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It boils down to a 'When in Rome, do as Romans do' situation. The
charter states no top posting.
I made sure to re-read the list charter when this thread started. I
couldn't find a single mention of top posting. The
On Mar 21, 2004, at 23:31, Rob M wrote:
On Sunday 21 March 2004 11:50 pm, Denny Jodeit wrote:
It boils down to a 'When in Rome, do as Romans do' situation. The
charter
states no top posting. I don't think it could be stated or explained
any
simpler.
Reference, please? The FreeBSD Handbook
On Saturday 20 March 2004 12:41 am, Chuck McManis wrote:
Netiquette guidelines are like C coding styles, subject to great rip
roaring debates. My personal pet peeve is 600 lines of included text only
to get to the bottom line which adds This is how I feel about it too. I
My .02,
Why can't
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:41:14PM -0800, Chuck McManis wrote:
At 03:24 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
Top-posting may be an opinion, but RFC 1855 makes it _standard_ opinion.
Let's get serious for a minute here. Just because someone wrote up an
INFORMATIONAL RFC does NOT make it STANDARD. It
So far I only see argument agains top-posting. If it makes sense for
you, perhaps you could give a couple of arguments wy you think its a
good idee.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 05:35:06PM -0500, Al Johnson wrote:
I'm with you... Top-posting makes the most sense for me.
I doubt it.
I was born to
[Format *not* recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html]
RFC 1855 violation.
On Saturday, 20 March 2004 at 20:53:18 +0100, Alex de Kruijff wrote:
So far I only see argument agains top-posting.
Why should the number of arguments count? It's their validity. But I
think you're
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
