Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
It would appear that on Dec 19, Raghavendra D Prabhu did say:
> In mutt, you cannot limit the quote context I guess and I
> don't want to limit the context by manually deleting the lines
{snip}
> For instance, while replying I make vim place cursor at the bottom
> of quoted reply to ease in replying and also make vim fold replies.
Pardon me Raghavendra, But someone who is comfortable (and competent) enough
with vim to make it automatically place the cursor at the bottom shouldn't
find it hard to use -- VISUAL LINE -- mode to quickly crop out most of the
non-relevant content from a quoted message. So I guess the most relevant
part of your entire post were the words "I don't want to"...
Speaking for myself I have to say that while I personally don't give a rat
whether someone does top, bottom, or in-line posting. I do care about "whole
quoting"... Though as long as the new {NON-quoted} text is significantly
longer than the combined total of all the quoted text then I tend to forgive
even that. And I should mention that I'm inclined to think that relevance
matters more than context when trimming. Though admittedly it wouldn't be
right to miss quote to the extent that someone who says they think "all rabid
dogs should be shot on sight", as only that they think "all dogs" should be...
> To conclude, it is not the theme of discussion with which I have an
> issue but the tone.
Now here I'm inclined to agree. Even when they are busy picking on someone
for the horrible bandwidth wasting practice of whole quoting instead of
just the relatively trivial matter of posting on top of a {hopefully} well
trimmed quote, it's much more productive to do so gently. Perhaps to explain
why {in case the alleged offender simply doesn't understand yet} And even to
say 'please'... Whereas to jump in like a swat team on a sniper is only going
to make it more likely that the guy who might have been willing to conform
without agreeing, will instead stubbornly stand with his back against the wall
and fight, like it was as important to never give up as if it was part of the
great Emacs/Vi holy war or something...
--
| ~^~ ~^~
| <*> <*> Joe (theWordy) Philbrook
| ^J(tWdy)P
| \___/ <>
But if I actually knew everything, then I'd know I was an idiot...
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On 16-12-11 12:24, Jude DaShiell wrote: [ bottom posting, nettiquette ] The creators of the original email protocol could have if they chose put together an rfc on top posting and writers of email programs could have written software in such a way that top posting became impossible. None of that happened to the best of my knowledge. Why? Actually, the netiquette *is* an RFC(1855), top posting is mentioned in 3.1.1: 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! mvg, Guus
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:07:59 +0100 Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > The 19/12/11, Ralf Madorf wrote: > > > PS: I mean, you should ban them using your MUAs filters, but a list > > shouldn't do. > > Whatever the filtering purpose is about, any personal filter fails at > the job because answers of others from a filtered mail aren't filtered. > It breaks both threads and context. Not a solution. > Here is a thought: Let us use ML to achieve something instead of spamming users mailboxes with 30 messages/hour. It is not the top/bottom/sideways posting, but discussions like these, what make people unsubscribe. -- Leonid Isaev GnuPG key ID: 164B5A6D Key fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:56:44 +0530 Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote: > Bot ? Since when is procmail a bot ? meaning is what matters and anyway I'd say it is, procmail is programmed to do what it does aka a robot.
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:13:32 +0100 Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > What solution will you spread when some people will be tied to hear > words like "suck", "fuck" and so? Change the words to things like, flowery and angel. Could be hilarious. "Shut up you mother angel your so flowery lovely"
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote: > I use > inline replies too given the circumstances. However, to avoid scrolling > you can try using t-prot for folding. While replying, vim also folds my > messages. This whole discussion has nothing to do with scrolling, most mail clients can fold the quoted parts out. However, sometimes you want to see the quote to get the context of what is being replied to. In this case you don't want lots of unnecessary stuff, but just enough to understand. > In mutt, you cannot limit the quote context I guess and I > don't want to limit the context by manually deleting the lines; Unless you want to piss people off, you should. Personally, I'm likely to just ignore emails that are a mess. I assume many others do the same. > however > I would also like to add as to how do you decide how much context to > retain in a non-inline reply -- too less will mean no context at all and > too much may mean some readers complain. Don't use non-inline. In the case of inline replies you want to keep just enough so that the answer you are writing makes sense. This requires a bit of thinking and a bit of effort, but if you can't take the time to do that, why should people take the time to read your email? > Again, if you think netiquette conceived by you/few is the final word > carved over iron, then I have no issues. This "netiquette" is indeed not followed by the populace at large, but in mailinglists for opensource projects it is generally agreed upon and expected behavior. If you want to be taken seriously you better follow it. When in Rome... Cheers, Tom
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 11:43 +0100, Ralf Madorf wrote: > > >What solution will you spread when some people will be tied to hear > > >words like "suck", "fuck" and so? > > Spencer Tracy in "Inherit the Wind" said (I only know the quote in > German, so I might badly translate it): "We should use all words that > are in layman's terms, since we don't have much of those words." IMO > people suffering of Tourette syndrome aren't an issue. If you don't like > people with this neuropsychiatric disorder, than filter mails from those > people, don't ban them. > > - Ralf PS: I mean, you should ban them using your MUAs filters, but a list shouldn't do.
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
> >What solution will you spread when some people will be tied to hear > >words like "suck", "fuck" and so? Spencer Tracy in "Inherit the Wind" said (I only know the quote in German, so I might badly translate it): "We should use all words that are in layman's terms, since we don't have much of those words." IMO people suffering of Tourette syndrome aren't an issue. If you don't like people with this neuropsychiatric disorder, than filter mails from those people, don't ban them. - Ralf
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
Hi, * On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:13:32AM +0100, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: Hi, The 16/12/11, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote: I am all for bottom posting if it helps the reader of my mail. But, * For instance, I use t-prot to fold the reply, so that I don't have keep scrolling to read the reply I already know (because mails are threaded), but I may be outside or using something which doesn't fold as well as this, in those circumstances top posting helps. Quoting the whole mail like you did is as crappy as top-posting. This is exactly what makes everybody scroll. So what do you think fits better -- inline replies as you did ? I use inline replies too given the circumstances. However, to avoid scrolling you can try using t-prot for folding. While replying, vim also folds my messages. In mutt, you cannot limit the quote context I guess and I don't want to limit the context by manually deleting the lines; however I would also like to add as to how do you decide how much context to retain in a non-inline reply -- too less will mean no context at all and too much may mean some readers complain. Since you seem to be so miffed by my whole mail quote, how would you feel in a mail thread with 5-10 previous mail contexts (even if they are small) ? * Regarding the context that people seem to be so enthusiastically ebullient about (even on the links you posted), tell me how much of context do you see in mails of today ? 1 ? 2 ? I followed this whole thread and I don't see more than that. Do you know why ? Art of quoting is *not* a matter of context level. It's about direct relevance of your own answer. I don't think this top or bottom posting matters to me for I use a sane client. But you keep whole-quoting which is silly. No MUA can help for that. Of course you can. See my answer above/bottom on how to configure. I imagine you or someone alike scrolling the whole mail to answer, no wonder you are so unhappy about the 'whole' posting thing. But what matters to me most is a post and bunch of morons (not your fault) replying stating people to be forcefully unsubscribed and/or rebuked if they top post. People who don't know how to work with mails need education. Once done, if they don't want to conform, it's pretty normal to ban them. Go ahead, I can't argue any further, spread your education; whatever floats your boat. I understand that people should bottom post but to enforce it won't be that easy; though you can write script to process your incoming mails and make all bottom posted, shouldnt be hard with procmail (given that all use markers when replying). This is the worst. Banning means we are free to not accept people who decided to not conform to the netiquette. Changing answers by a bot means there is no more respect for human choices. Again, if you think netiquette conceived by you/few is the final word carved over iron, then I have no issues. Also, when you state human choice -- I don't want to expand this further -- it means choices of others as well. What your bot would have done with the "hi" I wrote on the top of my answer? What solution will you spread when some people will be tied to hear words like "suck", "fuck" and so? Bot ? Since when is procmail a bot ? anyways, you can do something about it (I have tons like that), but all that matters whether you want to or not. For instance, while replying I make vim place cursor at the bottom of quoted reply to ease in replying and also make vim fold replies. To conclude, it is not the theme of discussion with which I have an issue but the tone. Something similar I have seen is ESR page being quoted everywhere without any prior deliberation. Regards, Raghavendra pgppbhx5YNQXB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
* On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 07:47:03AM +0530, gt wrote: Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial, yet consistently brought up topic. I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone points out to someone that top posting is bad. I was off the list for a while, and now when i came back, the story is still the same. I know top posting is bad, and i too sometimes preach people to avoid it. But from what i've seen, most of the times, people don't bother, or simply don't know what's wrong. Instead of having top-posting related mails in every thread, there should be a better way out. I suggest all of the top-posting haters should including one of these links or similar in their signatures. http://idallen.com/topposting.html http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html Also, we can have a forum and mailing list etiquette drive for a few days, with mention in the arch linux news, the mailing list, and setting it as the topic in the irc channel also. I know this is probably overkill, but it'll probably inform a lot more people about these issues than some stray posts in every other thread. PS: Since arch is always ahead of the other distros in adopting new stuff and bringing about change, let's be the first ones to spread some netiquette. I am all for bottom posting if it helps the reader of my mail. But, * For instance, I use t-prot to fold the reply, so that I don't have keep scrolling to read the reply I already know (because mails are threaded), but I may be outside or using something which doesn't fold as well as this, in those circumstances top posting helps. * Regarding the context that people seem to be so enthusiastically ebullient about (even on the links you posted), tell me how much of context do you see in mails of today ? 1 ? 2 ? I followed this whole thread and I don't see more than that. Do you know why ? Because people have better clients which allows one to conceive the structure of conversation (with threads and thread tree to visualize it) and also, read them well -- try reading a mail with a previous context of 10 in same mail and let me know. * Following my previous point, the link which you so fervently posted also states -- " This is even more tiresome than scrolling and with the unreliable nature of Usenet (and even email is inevitably unreliable), the previous message in the discussion can be simply unavailable. " This is *not* true today. I don't think this top or bottom posting matters to me for I use a sane client. But what matters to me most is a post and bunch of morons (not your fault) replying stating people to be forcefully unsubscribed and/or rebuked if they top post. I understand that people should bottom post but to enforce it won't be that easy; though you can write script to process your incoming mails and make all bottom posted, shouldnt be hard with procmail (given that all use markers when replying). pgppYoD7n0irw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Friday 16 Dec 2011 15:37:01 Ralf Madorf wrote: > The Internet anonymity is grotesque, it's like talking to a chatbot like > ELIZA (Weizenbaum is one of my idols :). Did you note that most Linux users > use their real names :)? > > This is more important for me than thinking about top and bottom posting > rules. Wow - out of the frying pan and into the fire, eh? ;-)
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 03:17, gt wrote: > Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial, > yet consistently brought up topic. > > I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone > points out to someone that top posting is bad. > > I was off the list for a while, and now when i came back, the story is > still the same. It is rather funny how this discussion just won't go away, ever. I suppose it does provide a bit of consistency on the net, so it's always good for something ;) Anyway, I think that just sending out the top-posting-is-bad links is only part of the education, also send out the link to Eric Raymond's [How To Ask Questions The Smart Way][1]. This in the hope that posters to the list will think a little about the possibly most important pair of sentences in that document: Hackers blow off questions that are inappropriately targeted in order to try to protect their communications channels from being drowned in irrelevance. You don't want this to happen to you. /M [1]: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: mag...@therning.org jabber: mag...@therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On 2011-12-16 at 11:16 +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote: > I agree. > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Allan McRae wrote: > > (...) > > > > My favourite option is to have someone with admin access to > > the list (e.g. me...) just unsubscribe anyone who top posts. Agreeing to unsubscribing top posters by top posting yourself. I'm not sure if this was intended or not. :D
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
Am 16.12.2011 04:47, schrieb Ralf Mardorf: > Yeah lets all just spam fuck gmail devs because they won't add a automatic > bottom posting feature. > > Seriously... > > +++ > > Since I'm uncertain how to handle incoming emails in the future I still use > my providers M$ thingy. I prefer bottom posting and plain text, but not only > my provider's M$ thingy doesn't mark the original message with signs for the > quote and there's no option to use plain text. Today it's very common to > write HTML and to answer above the original message. 1) It's "common" because most people do not use mailing lists and never used the usenet. They first used email post-2000 and never learned proper netiquette. That doesn't mean it's right. It just means these people are ignorant and keep behaving the way they want to after joining a mailing list - instead of following the established netiquette for such lists. 2) I hate to have to lecture you, but you need to learn proper quoting - reading your mails is painful. If your MTA doesn't do proper quoting, use a different one. 3) IMO, repeated failure to obey these rules should result in a ban from the list - this is not kindergarten, people should at least try to behave. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
Am 16.12.2011 15:41, schrieb Gaetan Bisson:
> [2011-12-16 14:51:43 +0100] G. Schlisio:
>> for me, top posting seemed to save scrolling time, and everything
>> included after the reply i regarded as a reference for remembering
>> discussion on the topic.
> Did you see the movie "Memento"?
>
>> man, i cant think of something more stupid…
> Well, do you think your signature is smart?
>
>> user@home:~ $ :(){:|:&};:
both: nope, whats your point?
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
[2011-12-16 14:51:43 +0100] G. Schlisio:
> for me, top posting seemed to save scrolling time, and everything
> included after the reply i regarded as a reference for remembering
> discussion on the topic.
Did you see the movie "Memento"?
> man, i cant think of something more stupid…
Well, do you think your signature is smart?
> user@home:~ $ :(){:|:&};:
--
Gaetan
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
> On 12/16/2011 04:59, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > > i mean, people don't act the same way with their own family vs. > > the internet allows for obscene levels of > > anonymity that simply *cannot* exist in traditional/direct > > communication We are humans so it's not bad if we misbehave, act like trolls etc.. Sometimes I have to misbehave, act like a troll etc., BUT I welcome that on Linux mailing lists it's common to do this using the real name. Way of behaving is not to fake an identity. The Internet anonymity is grotesque, it's like talking to a chatbot like ELIZA (Weizenbaum is one of my idols :). Did you note that most Linux users use their real names :)? This is more important for me than thinking about top and bottom posting rules. Cheers! Ralf
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 14:51 +0100, G. Schlisio wrote: > > Am 16.12.2011 11:20, schrieb Allan McRae: > > On 16/12/11 12:17, gt wrote: > > > > [snip] > > My favourite option is to have someone with admin access to the list > > (e.g. me...) just unsubscribe anyone who top posts. > > > > Allan > > > really not helping anyone. i personally prefer top posting, but there > are some points raised for bottom posting i never thought about before. > for me, top posting seemed to save scrolling time, and everything > included after the reply i regarded as a reference for remembering > discussion on the topic. > so if i dont know about 'bottom positng policy' onthis mailinglist, i'll > be kicked right out? > man, i cant think of something more stupid… Scrolling could become an issue if some people do top and other people do bottom posting. Plus somebody like me should use a M$ thingy of his provider and confuse people with "+++" marks since the thingy doesn't quote. I'm also against hard rules, but for mailing lists IMO it's good to post bottom, to use plain text only, to avoid notes similar to ^^^ since ^^^ on braille makes no sense. One of the bad things using HTML are the fonts. IIRC there's a M$ font where "J" is a smiley. Cheers! Ralf
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
Am 16.12.2011 11:20, schrieb Allan McRae:
On 16/12/11 12:17, gt wrote:
I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone
points out to someone that top posting is bad.
I was off the list for a while, and now when i came back, the story is
still the same.
And your email has changed the world and we will not see a repeat of
this in the future. Hooray!
My favourite option is to have someone with admin access to the list
(e.g. me...) just unsubscribe anyone who top posts.
Allan
really not helping anyone. i personally prefer top posting, but there
are some points raised for bottom posting i never thought about before.
for me, top posting seemed to save scrolling time, and everything
included after the reply i regarded as a reference for remembering
discussion on the topic.
so if i dont know about 'bottom positng policy' onthis mailinglist, i'll
be kicked right out?
man, i cant think of something more stupid…
--
Am 25. Mai ist Welthandtuchtag. www.towel-day.com.
user@home:~ $ :(){:|:&};:
www.dukun.de.
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 11:33 +0200, Rogutės Sparnuotos wrote: > [snip] > I have tried reading some of your messages in the last days, but it was > too difficult to understand who you are talking with, what you are > replying to and what do multiple lines of "+++" mean. Thought I'd simply > ignore them, but since this is kind of on topic... > [snip] Hi Rogutės :) I'm still uncertain how to handle incoming mails in the future, but I guess it might be better if I use a Linux MUA instead of the providers M§ thingy. Pardon, I've got a cold, so I'm slow at the moment. I'm using Evolution now and keep the mails on the server. Sorry again, Ralf
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On 12/16/2011 04:59, C Anthony Risinger wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Rodrigo Amorim Bahiense wrote: On 12/16/2011 02:03, Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr. wrote: I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they should top or bottom post. A majority of mail clients and the aforementioned Gmail default to top posting. What I would like to know is why is this the common practice. Obviously, people on forums and mailing lists like everything in the top down, first to last format. This frustrates me. I'll have to look into that greasemonkey plugin.. I am always fighting gmail on this issue. I believe top posting is common because [average] people don't use e-mails to write/read long texts anymore, but rather for chatting. Actually, nowadays it seems natural that if there is a way people can chat through some text message system, they will. I've unfollowed a lot of people who apparently thought twitter was just another web messenger. this topic is a sinkhole, but what you've stated is an individual's failure to recognize social context, and adjust behavior accordingly. i mean, people don't act the same way with their own family vs. meeting their partners for the first time, do they? or their close personal friends vs. new business acquaintances? or when traveling abroad? or on a first date? or? ... no, they don't. the internet allows for obscene levels of anonymity that simply *cannot* exist in traditional/direct communication -- permitting illusions of zero responsibility, fault, repercussion, embarrassment, or humiliation for their activities and escapades -- and is why trolls and all other forms of internet garbage exist. entering a community without competently researching and gratuitously accepting their established customs/preferences is completely asinine; entering that community and publicly smearing said customs, followed by proclamations of your own, is pompously asinine. it's not uncommon for me to spend hours on a reply/question, occasionally approaching 4hrs or more, and sometimes spread over several days, as i aim to be as clear, complete, and useful as possible to the greatest number of people, on *either* side. anyone who does not read to learn and write to teach is> /dev/null. Hi there. Thanks for your reply. It wasn't my intention to cover all the nuances and political/social implications of this topic. I just tried to say how some people, in my humble opinion, becomes very annoying when they want to share their perception of the world in _every_single_possible_media_type_. I really, really don't want to know where my friends are at every moment, and couldn't care less about what they're doing. In my personal view all these medias are very abusive to our privacy, and people now tends to think that it is very common to share your entire life with the internet. But anyway, you're right: they can do whatever they want with whatever they got. Nobody should repress their freedom of expression. I was wrong to write that second paragraph in my first reply as it was completely out of topic. I'm sorry for that. And am also sorry for taking your time to reply because It makes me take my time to reply in respect for yours. But the truth is that I don't want to have a philosophical discussion on whatever topic here, I'm signed to this list for technical discussion. I'm considering "my thread" done and won't reply any further message. If anyone feels compeled to discuss my opinions, please do so off-list and I will reply. -- Rodrigo
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > -Original Message- > From: arch-general-boun...@archlinux.org on behalf of Calvin Morrison > Sent: Fri 12/16/2011 04:21 > To: General Discussion about Arch Linux > Subject: Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited > > On 15 December 2011 22:07, Sander Jansen wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:17 PM, gt wrote: > > > Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial, > > > yet consistently brought up topic. > > > > > > I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone > > > points out to someone that top posting is bad. > > > > > > I was off the list for a while, and now when i came back, the story is > > > still the same. > > > > > > I know top posting is bad, and i too sometimes preach people to avoid > > > it. But from what i've seen, most of the times, people don't bother, or > > > simply don't know what's wrong. > > > > > > Instead of having top-posting related mails in every thread, there > > > should be a better way out. > > > > > > I suggest all of the top-posting haters should including one of these > > > links or similar in their signatures. > > > > > > http://idallen.com/topposting.html > > > > > > http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html > > > > > > Also, we can have a forum and mailing list etiquette drive for a few > > > days, with mention in the arch linux news, the mailing list, and setting > > > it as the topic in the irc channel also. > > > > > > I know this is probably overkill, but it'll probably inform a lot more > > > people about these issues than some stray posts in every other thread. > > > > > > PS: Since arch is always ahead of the other distros in adopting new > > > stuff and bringing about change, let's be the first ones to spread some > > > netiquette. > > > > Perhaps you could do something more useful with your time. For > > example, you could write chromium browser plugin that forces > > bottom-posting in gmail... > > > > Yeah lets all just spam fuck gmail devs because they won't add a automatic > bottom posting feature. > > Seriously... > > +++ > > Since I'm uncertain how to handle incoming emails in the future I still use > my providers M$ thingy. I prefer bottom posting and plain text, but not only > my provider's M$ thingy doesn't mark the original message with signs for the > quote and there's no option to use plain text. Today it's very common to > write HTML and to answer above the original message. > > This odd behaviour might have one advantage. People doing top posting perhaps > read the complete mail, before they reply, while answering under the quotes > very often means reading a sentence, then to answer, reading the next > sentence and to answer this etc., hence the context could get lost, this > could lead to misconceptions and those could lead to flame wars. > > I'm from the Ruhrgebiet, here we don't care much about netiquette. Do we > really need rules and rules and rules? > > +1 for bottom posting but I'm completely against instructing people not to > post as it's common on business correspondence. > > We are the freaks. Today nearly everybody is using HTML and top posting at > least in Germany is what averaged people do. > > - Ralf > The creators of the original email protocol could have if they chose put together an rfc on top posting and writers of email programs could have written software in such a way that top posting became impossible. None of that happened to the best of my knowledge. Why? Also, what does the future of email composition software hold on all operating system platforms? Personally, I wouldn't mind having a configuration setting in the software which would allow people to choose top posting or bottom posting of email messages as a transitional step, but I don't see that happening either. I use Linux when I can and Windows when I must and usually alpine on Linux and either outlook on windows for now. When my mac was working I used to use apple mail too. Probably the best thing to do is get good email composition software out the door for cli and gui interfaces that either allows a choice between top and bottom posting or just allows bottom posting and recommend the use of that software to people. I don't have a problem with bottom posting but do have a problem of thinking to do it when sending email especially when under stressful situations and I'm sure I'm not alone in this situation either. > Jude <http://www.shellworld.net/~jdashiel/nj.html>
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 08:20:42PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > And your email has changed the world and we will not see a repeat of > this in the future. Hooray! > > > My favourite option is to have someone with admin access to the list > (e.g. me...) just unsubscribe anyone who top posts. > I am in support for this action. Besides this adds an additional "feature" to the mailing list. Once one is tired of a mailing list, instead of unsubscribing via normal ways just sent a top posted reply to the next email from the list :-) (Granted using this feature can be a disaster in certain mailing lists --- for some unexplained reason OpenBSD lists comes in my mind first) ppk
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Allan McRae wrote: > On 16/12/11 12:17, gt wrote: [...] > My favourite option is to have someone with admin access to the list > (e.g. me...) just unsubscribe anyone who top posts. Power corrupts, absolute power ... is even more fun :D Rafa
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 05:19:59 +0100 "Ralf Mardorf" wrote: > I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they > should top or bottom post. That is the real issue and banning top-posting solves most problems but can actually cost a reader time in some cases. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Aka think about what your sending and they are receiving.
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
I agree. On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Allan McRae wrote: > On 16/12/11 12:17, gt wrote: >> I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone >> points out to someone that top posting is bad. >> >> I was off the list for a while, and now when i came back, the story is >> still the same. > > And your email has changed the world and we will not see a repeat of > this in the future. Hooray! > > > My favourite option is to have someone with admin access to the list > (e.g. me...) just unsubscribe anyone who top posts. > > Allan
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On 16/12/11 12:17, gt wrote: > I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone > points out to someone that top posting is bad. > > I was off the list for a while, and now when i came back, the story is > still the same. And your email has changed the world and we will not see a repeat of this in the future. Hooray! My favourite option is to have someone with admin access to the list (e.g. me...) just unsubscribe anyone who top posts. Allan
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On 16/12/2011, at 06:19, Rafa Griman wrote: > > There are other reasons I've seen: > - people that use "smart" phones have a limited screen size and > it's "easier" to top post. > - from a behavioural point of view, people follow these steps: > 1.- read the whole mail > 2.- hit the reply button > 3.- reply the e-mail (top posting, ofcourse ;) > 4.- don't give a heck if it answers everything, if they > forgot something, if they misunderstood something, ... > - not knowing that top posting is not "correct" or "accepted" > - people know, but don't care > > Rafa yoou sai it all I use an ipad and it is pain to edit the email..
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
Ralf Mardorf (2011-12-16 04:47): > -Original Message- > From: arch-general-boun...@archlinux.org on behalf of Calvin Morrison > Sent: Fri 12/16/2011 04:21 > To: General Discussion about Arch Linux > Subject: Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited Your "M$ thingy" is kind of verbose ^^^. > Yeah lets all just spam fuck gmail devs because they won't add a automatic > bottom posting feature. > > Seriously... > > +++ > > Since I'm uncertain how to handle incoming emails in the future I still use > my providers M$ thingy. I prefer bottom posting and plain text, but not only > my provider's M$ thingy doesn't mark the original message with signs for the > quote and there's no option to use plain text. Today it's very common to > write HTML and to answer above the original message. > > This odd behaviour might have one advantage. People doing top posting perhaps > read the complete mail, before they reply, while answering under the quotes > very often means reading a sentence, then to answer, reading the next > sentence and to answer this etc., hence the context could get lost, this > could lead to misconceptions and those could lead to flame wars. > > I'm from the Ruhrgebiet, here we don't care much about netiquette. Do we > really need rules and rules and rules? > > +1 for bottom posting but I'm completely against instructing people not to > post as it's common on business correspondence. > > We are the freaks. Today nearly everybody is using HTML and top posting at > least in Germany is what averaged people do. I have tried reading some of your messages in the last days, but it was too difficult to understand who you are talking with, what you are replying to and what do multiple lines of "+++" mean. Thought I'd simply ignore them, but since this is kind of on topic... -- -- Rogutės Sparnuotos
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > -Original Message- > From: arch-general-boun...@archlinux.org on behalf of Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr. > Sent: Fri 12/16/2011 05:03 > > I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they > should top or bottom post. A majority of mail clients and > the aforementioned Gmail default to top posting. What I would like to know > is why is this the common practice. [snip] > > +++ > > I can explain the reason why :p. > > In the office they file that way. Old sheets are under new > sheets. It's convenient since you don't need to change > all the papers, just to file another sheet. > > For emails it of cause is better to do it vice versa, but the > majority doesn't work scientific/creative, so the better style > has no advantage for those people. For them it's easier to > do the same thing on the computer, as they do for 'real' folder. There are other reasons I've seen: - people that use "smart" phones have a limited screen size and it's "easier" to top post. - from a behavioural point of view, people follow these steps: 1.- read the whole mail 2.- hit the reply button 3.- reply the e-mail (top posting, ofcourse ;) 4.- don't give a heck if it answers everything, if they forgot something, if they misunderstood something, ... - not knowing that top posting is not "correct" or "accepted" - people know, but don't care Rafa
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
HI :) On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > -Original Message- > From: arch-general-boun...@archlinux.org on behalf of Calvin Morrison > Sent: Fri 12/16/2011 04:21 > To: General Discussion about Arch Linux > Subject: Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited [...] > I'm from the Ruhrgebiet, here we don't care much about netiquette. > Do we really need rules and rules and rules? IMHO, they're not rules as in "laws", but as in: respect for others. Just like you open a door when you see someone with a pram or you see them carrying a bunch of bags. Those are not written rules or laws, ... but they are "respect" rules. > +1 for bottom posting but I'm completely against instructing people > not to post as it's common on business correspondence. > > We are the freaks. Today nearly everybody is using HTML and top posting > at least in Germany is what averaged people do. Here in Spain it's the same: everyone top posts HTML ... . But that doesn't mean it is correct, it should be done or is acceptable. It's like going to England and saying: "I don't care if they drive on the left side. In Spain we drive on the right so I'm going to drive on the right side." Yes, top-posting on certain mailing lists can be just as dangerous ;) OK, let's go with a "less dangerous" example. If I go to a friends house and they take off their shoes, I should do the same. It's not my house and it's a sign of respect and education to that person. Same here. We are going somewhere as a guest, so we should accept their "customs", "unwritten rules" or whatever you want to call them. We shouldn't impose our own. If someone is selfish enough and does not want to accept those rules ... he can go somewhere else and establish his own rules. He's free to do that and should not worry: we will not go to his mailing list and bottom post just to annoy him and take revenge. In fact, we probably won't even go to his mailing list ;) And that's OK: his mailing list, his rules. It's not about being radical, it's about being organized, respectful, ... There's always a side case or someone that "forgets", some MUA that's a bit crappy, ... If so, we should notify this person in an educated way, if he insists and ignores all the warnings ... he should be ignored too (just like he ignores us). He won't recieve answers (support?) to his questions, as simple as that. Rafa
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Rodrigo Amorim Bahiense wrote: > On 12/16/2011 02:03, Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr. wrote: >> >> I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they >> should top or bottom post. A majority of mail clients and >> the aforementioned Gmail default to top posting. What I would like to know >> is why is this the common practice. Obviously, people on forums and >> mailing >> lists like everything in the top down, first to last format. This >> frustrates me. I'll have to look into that greasemonkey plugin.. I am >> always fighting gmail on this issue. > > I believe top posting is common because [average] people don't use e-mails > to write/read long texts anymore, but rather for chatting. > > Actually, nowadays it seems natural that if there is a way people can chat > through some text message system, they will. I've unfollowed a lot of people > who apparently thought twitter was just another web messenger. this topic is a sinkhole, but what you've stated is an individual's failure to recognize social context, and adjust behavior accordingly. i mean, people don't act the same way with their own family vs. meeting their partners for the first time, do they? or their close personal friends vs. new business acquaintances? or when traveling abroad? or on a first date? or ? ... no, they don't. the internet allows for obscene levels of anonymity that simply *cannot* exist in traditional/direct communication -- permitting illusions of zero responsibility, fault, repercussion, embarrassment, or humiliation for their activities and escapades -- and is why trolls and all other forms of internet garbage exist. entering a community without competently researching and gratuitously accepting their established customs/preferences is completely asinine; entering that community and publicly smearing said customs, followed by proclamations of your own, is pompously asinine. it's not uncommon for me to spend hours on a reply/question, occasionally approaching 4hrs or more, and sometimes spread over several days, as i aim to be as clear, complete, and useful as possible to the greatest number of people, on *either* side. anyone who does not read to learn and write to teach is > /dev/null. -- C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On 12/16/2011 02:03, Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr. wrote: I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they should top or bottom post. A majority of mail clients and the aforementioned Gmail default to top posting. What I would like to know is why is this the common practice. Obviously, people on forums and mailing lists like everything in the top down, first to last format. This frustrates me. I'll have to look into that greasemonkey plugin.. I am always fighting gmail on this issue. Ringmaster I believe top posting is common because [average] people don't use e-mails to write/read long texts anymore, but rather for chatting. Actually, nowadays it seems natural that if there is a way people can chat through some text message system, they will. I've unfollowed a lot of people who apparently thought twitter was just another web messenger. -- Rodrigo
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
[2011-12-16 04:47:14 +0100] Ralf Mardorf: > Do we really need rules and rules and rules? We don't. But it's not just about you writing messages the way you want: it's about other people being able to read them conveniently, especially you expect them to consider the points you are making or questions you are asking. These guidelines: http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html should be common sense to everyone; when you email looks like garbage and is hard to read, don't be surprised that it pisses people off. > Since I'm uncertain how to handle incoming emails in the future I still use > my providers M$ thingy. And that is terrible: I have to spend time figuring out what parts of your messages are new in the discussion... So don't be surprised if in the near future I stop reading your messages altogether. -- Gaetan
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
When in a private correspondence, regardless of the number of participants, the context is probably known and thus there is no need to read previous replies. I would reply like this, because I only care about what you and I are talking about at this point of time - there is no need for any reference. If I do feel like quoting something, I may look below. Since the importance of the previous replies are not high in this scenario, they are at the bottom, out of view. On 16 December 2011 12:03, Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr. wrote: > I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they > should top or bottom post. But I may be concerned about one particular message or sentence or paragraph or word, and in that case I may choose to highlight the relevant extract like this. In a high-traffic medium such as a mailing list, there is no prior knowledge of context or content. As such, replying like this makes the most sense and follows the flow of conversation. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
-Original Message- From: arch-general-boun...@archlinux.org on behalf of Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr. Sent: Fri 12/16/2011 05:03 I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they should top or bottom post. A majority of mail clients and the aforementioned Gmail default to top posting. What I would like to know is why is this the common practice. [snip] +++ I can explain the reason why :p. In the office they file that way. Old sheets are under new sheets. It's convenient since you don't need to change all the papers, just to file another sheet. For emails it of cause is better to do it vice versa, but the majority doesn't work scientific/creative, so the better style has no advantage for those people. For them it's easier to do the same thing on the computer, as they do for 'real' folder.
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they should top or bottom post. A majority of mail clients and the aforementioned Gmail default to top posting. What I would like to know is why is this the common practice. Obviously, people on forums and mailing lists like everything in the top down, first to last format. This frustrates me. I'll have to look into that greasemonkey plugin.. I am always fighting gmail on this issue. Ringmaster -- "Breathe Deeply and Dream"
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Auguste Pop wrote: > i'm not sure how the script works. i went to the link you gave and hit > the install button. i closed all chromium instances and opened the > browser again. still, bottom posting is not automatic. Might be a Chromium issue. I'm on Firefox v3.6.13 on Ubuntu here (yeah, ancient, I know, but the computers at work are unfortunately not as bleeding edge as my home machine) and it works. It should generally just move the quoted part to the top of the message, strip the signature (if there is any) and place the cursor below that. If you use it with Gmail's "only quote selected parts of the message" feature, it pretty much does a pre-setup for bottom posting for you. I can try it at home tonight on Arch and Chromium and see if there's any problems.
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Alex Liu wrote: > However, there exists a bottom posting script for Greasemonkey if you > want to check that out. > http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/35866 > An according lab feature has been suggested some time ago in the Gmail > group, but as of no there has been no reply by one of the Gmail team > members. i'm not sure how the script works. i went to the link you gave and hit the install button. i closed all chromium instances and opened the browser again. still, bottom posting is not automatic.
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
-Original Message- From: arch-general-boun...@archlinux.org on behalf of Calvin Morrison Sent: Fri 12/16/2011 04:21 To: General Discussion about Arch Linux Subject: Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited On 15 December 2011 22:07, Sander Jansen wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:17 PM, gt wrote: > > Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial, > > yet consistently brought up topic. > > > > I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone > > points out to someone that top posting is bad. > > > > I was off the list for a while, and now when i came back, the story is > > still the same. > > > > I know top posting is bad, and i too sometimes preach people to avoid > > it. But from what i've seen, most of the times, people don't bother, or > > simply don't know what's wrong. > > > > Instead of having top-posting related mails in every thread, there > > should be a better way out. > > > > I suggest all of the top-posting haters should including one of these > > links or similar in their signatures. > > > > http://idallen.com/topposting.html > > > > http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html > > > > Also, we can have a forum and mailing list etiquette drive for a few > > days, with mention in the arch linux news, the mailing list, and setting > > it as the topic in the irc channel also. > > > > I know this is probably overkill, but it'll probably inform a lot more > > people about these issues than some stray posts in every other thread. > > > > PS: Since arch is always ahead of the other distros in adopting new > > stuff and bringing about change, let's be the first ones to spread some > > netiquette. > > Perhaps you could do something more useful with your time. For > example, you could write chromium browser plugin that forces > bottom-posting in gmail... > Yeah lets all just spam fuck gmail devs because they won't add a automatic bottom posting feature. Seriously... +++ Since I'm uncertain how to handle incoming emails in the future I still use my providers M$ thingy. I prefer bottom posting and plain text, but not only my provider's M$ thingy doesn't mark the original message with signs for the quote and there's no option to use plain text. Today it's very common to write HTML and to answer above the original message. This odd behaviour might have one advantage. People doing top posting perhaps read the complete mail, before they reply, while answering under the quotes very often means reading a sentence, then to answer, reading the next sentence and to answer this etc., hence the context could get lost, this could lead to misconceptions and those could lead to flame wars. I'm from the Ruhrgebiet, here we don't care much about netiquette. Do we really need rules and rules and rules? +1 for bottom posting but I'm completely against instructing people not to post as it's common on business correspondence. We are the freaks. Today nearly everybody is using HTML and top posting at least in Germany is what averaged people do. - Ralf
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Kazuo Teramoto wrote: > Part of the whole 'bottom posting' thing is about *reading* and > *thinking* about the reply and not *automatic* replying to a message. This. I think it's not about if the reply is above or below whatever you quote but because a full quote just makes no sense in, let's say, 90% of the cases. It just stretches the message and has no actual benefit over just quoting the part you want to refer to. It's annoying in message boards as well, by the way. Unfortunately it's much more common there. People tend to full quote everything -- maybe because they are just to lazy to strip the parts that have no value to the answer. However, there exists a bottom posting script for Greasemonkey if you want to check that out. http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/35866 An according lab feature has been suggested some time ago in the Gmail group, but as of no there has been no reply by one of the Gmail team members.
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Dec 16, 2011 9:06 AM, "Kazuo Teramoto" wrote: > > On 2011-12-16T01:21:22, Calvin Morrison wrote: > >Yeah lets all just spam fuck gmail devs because they won't add a automatic > >bottom posting feature. > > > > I don't think this is a solution. > > Part of the whole 'bottom posting' thing is about *reading* and > *thinking* about the reply and not *automatic* replying to a message. > I did top posting sometimes because gmail.com on my low end phone's opera mini browser didn't allow me to reply inline. All this has changed now since I got an Android smartphone.
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On 2011-12-16T01:21:22, Calvin Morrison wrote: >Yeah lets all just spam fuck gmail devs because they won't add a automatic >bottom posting feature. > I don't think this is a solution. Part of the whole 'bottom posting' thing is about *reading* and *thinking* about the reply and not *automatic* replying to a message.
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On 15 December 2011 22:07, Sander Jansen wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:17 PM, gt wrote: > > Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial, > > yet consistently brought up topic. > > > > I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone > > points out to someone that top posting is bad. > > > > I was off the list for a while, and now when i came back, the story is > > still the same. > > > > I know top posting is bad, and i too sometimes preach people to avoid > > it. But from what i've seen, most of the times, people don't bother, or > > simply don't know what's wrong. > > > > Instead of having top-posting related mails in every thread, there > > should be a better way out. > > > > I suggest all of the top-posting haters should including one of these > > links or similar in their signatures. > > > > http://idallen.com/topposting.html > > > > http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html > > > > Also, we can have a forum and mailing list etiquette drive for a few > > days, with mention in the arch linux news, the mailing list, and setting > > it as the topic in the irc channel also. > > > > I know this is probably overkill, but it'll probably inform a lot more > > people about these issues than some stray posts in every other thread. > > > > PS: Since arch is always ahead of the other distros in adopting new > > stuff and bringing about change, let's be the first ones to spread some > > netiquette. > > Perhaps you could do something more useful with your time. For > example, you could write chromium browser plugin that forces > bottom-posting in gmail... > Yeah lets all just spam fuck gmail devs because they won't add a automatic bottom posting feature. Seriously...
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:17 PM, gt wrote: > Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial, > yet consistently brought up topic. > > I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone > points out to someone that top posting is bad. > > I was off the list for a while, and now when i came back, the story is > still the same. > > I know top posting is bad, and i too sometimes preach people to avoid > it. But from what i've seen, most of the times, people don't bother, or > simply don't know what's wrong. > > Instead of having top-posting related mails in every thread, there > should be a better way out. > > I suggest all of the top-posting haters should including one of these > links or similar in their signatures. > > http://idallen.com/topposting.html > > http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html > > Also, we can have a forum and mailing list etiquette drive for a few > days, with mention in the arch linux news, the mailing list, and setting > it as the topic in the irc channel also. > > I know this is probably overkill, but it'll probably inform a lot more > people about these issues than some stray posts in every other thread. > > PS: Since arch is always ahead of the other distros in adopting new > stuff and bringing about change, let's be the first ones to spread some > netiquette. Perhaps you could do something more useful with your time. For example, you could write chromium browser plugin that forces bottom-posting in gmail...
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:17 AM, gt wrote: > Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial, > yet consistently brought up topic. I think it is very pertinent. I'll start a similar post in archlinux-br. > I suggest all of the top-posting haters should including one of these > links or similar in their signatures. > > http://idallen.com/topposting.html > > http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html Thanks for the links. I already have a similar signature, but will update it. -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? --- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto Linux user #524555 ---
Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On 15 December 2011 21:17, gt wrote: > Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial, > yet consistently brought up topic. > > I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone > points out to someone that top posting is bad. > > I was off the list for a while, and now when i came back, the story is > still the same. > > I know top posting is bad, and i too sometimes preach people to avoid > it. But from what i've seen, most of the times, people don't bother, or > simply don't know what's wrong. > > Instead of having top-posting related mails in every thread, there > should be a better way out. > > I suggest all of the top-posting haters should including one of these > links or similar in their signatures. > > http://idallen.com/topposting.html > > http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html > > Also, we can have a forum and mailing list etiquette drive for a few > days, with mention in the arch linux news, the mailing list, and setting > it as the topic in the irc channel also. > > I know this is probably overkill, but it'll probably inform a lot more > people about these issues than some stray posts in every other thread. > > PS: Since arch is always ahead of the other distros in adopting new > stuff and bringing about change, let's be the first ones to spread some > netiquette. > This so much. I didn't understand top posting was bad for along time until someone exploded at me. Now I realize what a jerk I was. A little bit of education goes a LONG way. :-) Calvin Morrison
[arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial, yet consistently brought up topic. I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone points out to someone that top posting is bad. I was off the list for a while, and now when i came back, the story is still the same. I know top posting is bad, and i too sometimes preach people to avoid it. But from what i've seen, most of the times, people don't bother, or simply don't know what's wrong. Instead of having top-posting related mails in every thread, there should be a better way out. I suggest all of the top-posting haters should including one of these links or similar in their signatures. http://idallen.com/topposting.html http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html Also, we can have a forum and mailing list etiquette drive for a few days, with mention in the arch linux news, the mailing list, and setting it as the topic in the irc channel also. I know this is probably overkill, but it'll probably inform a lot more people about these issues than some stray posts in every other thread. PS: Since arch is always ahead of the other distros in adopting new stuff and bringing about change, let's be the first ones to spread some netiquette. -- O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
