I really can't believe I'm still reading this bloody thread, anyway, down at the bottom...
Steve Mynott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: >> >>>>> "Steve" == Steve Mynott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> Steve> I think Microsoft have done usability studies on this which >> Steve> is why their mail clients use "top quoting". Did your >> Steve> friends do usability studies? I did and asked a >> Steve> non-technical user in the pub about this and they prefered >> Steve> top posting. [...] > BTW I prefer your Person> type quoting style to the usual >>>>>> mess > which makes it often impossible to see who has written what and makes > misquoting (as seen on list today and ironically on this very thread > about "correct" email usage) more likely. > > Is there a GNUS setting for this? Yes. If you're using Gnus you should check out 'supercite' which does all that magic for you. Personally, I don't like it because: 1. It chews up a ludicrous amount of the left hand margin with information that's only really of any use at the beginning of each quoted block. 2. It doesn't provide as much information about *when* in the thread a person said something. with 'classic' quoting, this information can be readily gleaned from the depth of the quotes. 3. Er... 4. That's it. Something which assigned different quote marks to different posters, and then used them in a similar fashion to the generic '>' might be quite useful, but not useful enough that I can be arsed to either write it myself or to see if someone has already done so. -- Piers
