John Jolet wrote:
On Sunday 30 October 2005 16:30, Richard Fish wrote:
But since top-posters are too lazy to scroll to the end of a message, or
trim the original before replying, I'm guessing they will be too lazy to
follow the link and read the RFC. So I'll quote the relevant section here:
Personally, I prefer to top-post, but refrain in this context out of respect
for my fellow admins. However, I don't appreciate being called lazy. If you
lok up the word lazy, you will see connotations having to do with preferring
to do less work. You admit, then that top posting involves less work? is
easier?
For the writer, yes. For the reader, no.
In private and business contexts, I have no problem with top-posting,
and I do it commonly. In those contexts, it is reasonable to expect
that every recepient has followed the conversation, and will not be
confused by a top-posted comment. In fact, I find it easier and faster
to read top-posted comments in that context, and if you read the RFC
section on one-to-one communications, you will see that the rules there
are much more relaxed.
For a mail list, the context is very different, and top-posting is just
not appropriate. Remember that the recepient is not just current
subscribers, but also people who will be searching the archives months
from now. It is _not_ easier for those recepients to read top-postings.
"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough
text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers
understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews,
especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host
to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing
the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the
entire original!"
and this has what to do with email? I'm sure in the dark ages of the internet
when mail was, indeed "proliferated by distributing the postings from one
host to another" that was a good point. is it still?
Yes, that part of the RFC seems a bit obsolete, until you again consider
mail archives. Someone searching the archives may not go immediately to
the beginning of a thread that they are interested in. This part of the
RFC is still relevant for them.
I've got an idea,
let's use the bandwidth of the list to help one another, not be miss manners.
Agreed. This horse is already dead anyway. :-)
-Richard
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
