Hi, I've always liked top posting for summary replies. It's like geology...if you want to know the past, then you dig down. Also, the mail headers themselves are a series of top posts by the mail software. Makes it all kind of harmonious. :) This is only my preference. I've seen too many flame wars about this on newsgroups that don't end up serving any purpose.
Signatures, I trim if I remember, but it seems less an issue if one top posts because then you won't need to scroll through them unless you forget the thread and need to reference down. If I point-by-point reply, then I'm more likely to remember to trim unnecessary material from the message body. I'd prefer the software to not strip the signatures. John On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 13:53, Jason Tackaberry wrote: > On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 20:16, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > For more details, see: > > http://www.globecom.net/ietf/draft/draft-bambenek-posting-guidelines-00.html > > That's pretty interesting. I didn't know such a document existed. :) I > hardly ever post in "summary reply" form as the IETF draft suggests. My > habit, developed from my BBS days, is to always quote inline (aka > point-by-point reply) even if (such as in this case) I'm only quoting > one thing. The reason is to immediately establish context. I don't > think, as the IETF doc suggests, this detracts from the emphasis of my > reply. > > What are other people's feelings on this? > > As for removing the signature from the QRT, I have sent a couple emails > where it was relevant to quote the person's signature. Every other time > I remove it manually, though. I guess it'd be more convenient to have > Evo strip the signature from the QRT, but I have mixed feelings that it > may be doing the wrong thing. > > Jason. > -- John S. Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.users.qwest.net/~weberjohns _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
