Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
From: Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 10/18/01 1:27:36 PM From: Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 10/18/01 12:36:55 PM [rant snipped] I've said this before and I'll (no doubt) have to say it again in the future. The london.pm mailing list is meant to be inclusive. Everyone is welcome here. This means that we _do_ _not_ flame people simply because they fail to use our favourite mail client or don't post strictly in line with the usual guidelines. Yes, we have (many) people on the list who have been on the internet for a long time and can quote RFCs at length to back up all of the netiquette rules, but it's a complete waste of time. Most people on the internet aren't like that these days. Most people happily post using MS Outlook because that's what they get given at work. Most people reply jeopardy style because that's what their mail client encourages them to do. If you shout at them, they'll just leave the list and complain how elitist we are. I don't want that to happen. If anyone thinks that's an acceptable outcome then perhaps they are on the wrong list. The battle against the invading barbarian hordes was lost years ago. Learn to live with it. Or annex your own part of the internet and impose your strict rules there. But don't do it on this list. There's nothing to see here. Move along now. Sigh. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. This discussion is uninteresting and unhelpful. But worse that that, it has the potential to make us appear elitist and unwelcoming. I will not allow that on this list. Please consider the topic closed. Anyone continuing this discussion will be immediately removed from the list. The people who continued the discussion yesterday can consider themselves lucky that I'm in a benevolent mood and haven't already unsubbed them. That is all. Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk Let me see you make decisions, without your television - Depeche Mode (Stripped)
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 06:33:12PM +, Redvers Davies wrote: network configuration =) I believe the phrase was If they want to mail it to me they'll fix it. On the contrary, it has made sure I leave it exactly the same way as it is now =) You can hardly say on the contrary here, you have decided not to fix it being aware that this means that mail from you will not reach him. He said If they want to mail it to me, you have obviously decided not to mail him directly, this is not contrary position ;-) cheers Andrew
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
On 18 Oct 2001, Steve Mynott wrote:
[about how we can never solve jeopardy quoting as it's a social
problem] [1]
A pint (or five) to the first person that writes a Mail::Audit script /
PINE[2] display filter that can detect jeopardy quoting and delete all but
the first n lines and move it above the top of the mail quoted properly
Later.
Mark.
(who's just started experimenting with Exchange's web mail front end and
quite likes it, but would never use it as a real mail client)
[1] This is how I like to reply to whole mails btw
[2] Or mutt. As long as it can easily be adapted between the two
--
s'' Mark Fowler London.pm Bath.pm
http://www.twoshortplanks.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
';use Term'Cap;$t=Tgetent Term'Cap{};print$t-Tputs(cl);for$w(split/ +/
){for(0..30){$|=print$t-Tgoto(cm,$_,$y). $w;select$k,$k,$k,.03}$y+=2}
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 09:33:02AM +, Steve Mynott wrote: FLAME ON paraphrased: You're not going to get everyone to abide by those rules so I'm going to jeopardy quote now just to irritate you I dunno, it has worked on some mailing lists I'm on. Of course, we do kick people out if they either can't learn to quote sanely after a reasonable time, or if they deliberately quote improperly because they think people who object are just stupid and old-fashioned and don't understand that they're above all that since they're Nathans and use fucking Microsoft Outlook and not some kind of stoneage text mail client for hippy programmers. People do mistakes sometimes, especially if they're used to jeopardy quoting or whatever. The fact that people *will* do something doesn't mean that something isn't wrong/bad/whatever, as anyone with even a vague grasp of logic will understand. -- Niklas Nordebo -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- +447966251290 The day is seven hours and fifteen minutes old, and already it's crippled with the weight of my evasions, deceit, and downright lies
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 11:20:17AM +, Steve Mynott wrote: Niklas Nordebo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 09:33:02AM +, Steve Mynott wrote: FLAME ON paraphrased: You're not going to get everyone to abide by those rules so I'm going to jeopardy quote now just to irritate you That wasn't actually the intention. I will top quote when I think it makes the email easier to read which I think is generally the case when you are writing more than you are quoting. Do you read bottom-up, then? if not, why bother quoting? did you actually read any of the link I posted? A drawback of bottom quoting is that you have to scroll past the quote in order to get the new material. I read a _lot_ of email and such Yes. However, there shouldn't really be *ENOUGH TO SCROLL PAST* which was my point in the first place. If you don't trim the quoting I still have to scroll past all of the stuff you've quoted, just to see if there's anything new at the bottom. Bt. You lose. scrolling wastes valuable time and key strokes. It also raises visability of your words. I am well aware that its against How? USENET/mailing list tradition as codified in 1989 but I think its just geek snobbery against Outlook and AOL users and the like really. You obviously didn't read that link. Go and read it. You may understand why I feel this way. The examples are good and clear. Isn't the Perl way There is More Than One Way to Do It? Yes. However, we're now talking about english not perl. Bzt. You lose. Again. Bottom quoting to me only makes sense to me now if you are responding on a point to point basis (as I am doing now). So I use both quoting styles. If you end up top-posting, then why bother quoting? Of course, we do kick people out if they either can't learn to quote sanely after a reasonable time, or if they deliberately quote improperly because they think people who object are just stupid and old-fashioned and don't understand that they're above all that since they're Nathans and use fucking Microsoft Outlook and not some kind of stoneage text mail client for hippy programmers. Sorry you lost me here. I can't understand whether you are being ironic or not and so your meaning is lost. Don't worry if it's over your head. You're obviously one of the kind of people that's being insulted. :-) I care more about the content people post and how easy it is to read than the way they quote it. Bzzt. You lose. YET AGAIN. The entire point of sensible quoting is *TO MAKE IT EASY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND*. You're really doing well here. People do mistakes sometimes, especially if they're used to jeopardy quoting or whatever. The fact that people *will* do something doesn't mean that something isn't wrong/bad/whatever, as anyone with even a vague grasp of logic will understand. I think the solution is client-side (filtering) rather than server-side. No - no filtering, just a few seconds thought when composing the article. Complaining about quoting really is petty and a total waste of time. So WTF are you doing it? If you hate broken quoting so much why don't you write a Perl script to fix it to the way you like and put all your mail through it? Because then you need to understand language. Well volunteered, since you think it would be so easy. Problem Over. Not at all. MBM (angry=630476ms). -- Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://colondot.net/
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
From: Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 10/18/01 12:36:55 PM [rant snipped] I've said this before and I'll (no doubt) have to say it again in the future. The london.pm mailing list is meant to be inclusive. Everyone is welcome here. This means that we _do_ _not_ flame people simply because they fail to use our favourite mail client or don't post strictly in line with the usual guidelines. Yes, we have (many) people on the list who have been on the internet for a long time and can quote RFCs at length to back up all of the netiquette rules, but it's a complete waste of time. Most people on the internet aren't like that these days. Most people happily post using MS Outlook because that's what they get given at work. Most people reply jeopardy style because that's what their mail client encourages them to do. If you shout at them, they'll just leave the list and complain how elitist we are. I don't want that to happen. If anyone thinks that's an acceptable outcome then perhaps they are on the wrong list. The battle against the invading barbarian hordes was lost years ago. Learn to live with it. Or annex your own part of the internet and impose your strict rules there. But don't do it on this list. There's nothing to see here. Move along now. Dave... -- http://www.dave.org.uk Let me see you make decisions, without your television - Depeche Mode (Stripped)
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Niklas Nordebo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: paraphrased: You're not going to get everyone to abide by those rules so I'm going to jeopardy quote now just to irritate you That wasn't actually the intention. I will top quote when I think it makes the email easier to read which I think is generally the case when you are writing more than you are quoting. A drawback of bottom quoting is that you have to scroll past the quote in order to get the new material. I read a _lot_ of email and such scrolling wastes valuable time and key strokes. It also raises visability of your words. I am well aware that its against USENET/mailing list tradition as codified in 1989 but I think its just geek snobbery against Outlook and AOL users and the like really. Isn't the Perl way There is More Than One Way to Do It? Bottom quoting to me only makes sense to me now if you are responding on a point to point basis (as I am doing now). So I use both quoting styles. No, it's much, much simpler than that. By quoting at the top, you are implying that you have not read and taken in the rest of the mail. -Dom -- | Semantico: creators of major online resources | | URL: http://www.semantico.com/ | | Tel: +44 (1273) 72 | | Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The london.pm mailing list is meant to be inclusive. Everyone is welcome here. This means that we _do_ _not_ flame people simply because they fail to use our favourite mail client or don't post strictly in line with the usual guidelines. You are of course, absolutely correct. When small annoyances build up over time (like the quoting thing, which bugs me a bit, and other people probably more), it's very easy to forget that we have more in common than apart and that we are all gathered together for a reason, which is more important than flinging insults. -Dom -- | Semantico: creators of major online resources | | URL: http://www.semantico.com/ | | Tel: +44 (1273) 72 | | Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
* Dominic Mitchell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: You are of course, absolutely correct. When small annoyances build up over time (like the quoting thing, which bugs me a bit, and other people probably more), it's very easy to forget that we have more in common than apart and that we are all gathered together for a reason, which is more important than flinging insults. Sorry for the one liner, but I could not agree more with the sentiments of this e-mail. Greg -- Greg McCarroll http://217.34.97.146/~gem/
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]
On Thu 18 Oct, Alex Gough wrote: Footnotes [1] are used by writers [2] to add further detail to their prose [3] or to point to a source of reference [4]. The TeXbook, p 117: Authors who are interested in good exposition should avoid footnotes whenever possible, since footnotes tend to be distracting[*]. [*] Yet Gibbon's iDecline and Fall/i would not have been the same without footnotes. Sometimes the use of footnotes [5] can reach a ridiculous level [6]. As in the TeX Edmac macros for critical editions which permit five series of footnotes, all on the same page: 'EDMAC provides five layers of notes in the belief that this will be adequate for the most demanding editions. But it is not hard to add further layers of notes to EDMAC should they be required.' Roger -- Roger Horne 11 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3QB mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hrothgar.co.uk/
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 03:46:21PM +0100, Roger Horne wrote: The TeXbook, p 117: Authors who are interested in good exposition should avoid footnotes whenever possible, since footnotes tend to be distracting[*]. [*] Yet Gibbon's iDecline and Fall/i would not have been the same without footnotes. I'm reading that[1] right now. I have it in a lovely six-volume set[2], but I also bought an electronic edition from http://www.peanutpress.com cos it's much easier to read on the train. It has the footnotes hyperlinked from the body text, which is good. What is not good is that the hyperlink takes you to a page which has all the footnotes for the entire chapter on it, so you have to scroll to find the right one. What *should* happen is that the hyperlink should pop up the footnote over the top of the body text. Bah. 1 - Gibbon, not the TeXbook[3][4] 2 - Everyman edition, 50 quid for all six IIRC, from the British Museum shop. 3 - sorry for the footnotes, I couldn't resist 4 - but I bet Gibbon would use TeX if he were alive today -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david Do not be afraid of cooking, as your ingredients will know and misbehave -- Fergus Henderson
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK,London]
Sue wrote:
Mark Fowler wrote:
A pint (or five) to the first person that writes a Mail::Audit script /
PINE[2] display filter that can detect jeopardy quoting and...
I find the widespread practice of cutesy footnoting to be far more
irritating than any of the other complaints which have come through my
inbox today.
Erk, sorry. Didn't know it bothered you. How about I write you a
Mail::Audit script that can fix that too ;-) .
We know perl right? Can't we (collectivly) come up with a set of scripts
to fix (for certain values of fix, depending on personal style) all of
these problems before the data is actually presented to us. This *has* to
be better than ranting at people. I hate it when mommy and daddy fight.
Problems off of the top of my head that may or may not need fixing
depending on your personal point of view:
1) Non ASCII mail (i.e. when someone uses a pesky font with ukp signs in
it or something, or worse smart quotes)
2) Jeopardy Quoting
3) Lines 72 chars long (we - well damian - has fixed this one right)
4) Attachments (this is a biggie - but I'd like to see my attachments
automatically dumped in a password protected web directory that I can
access via the web if I really have to)
5) Silly cute footnotes
6) Any signature over 4 lines long
7) Mailing list unsubscribe info.
8) HTML mail (Or in my case something that can detect HTML mail and
then filter it to spam)
10) Numbered lists that don't have the right value (again, fixx0red by
damian)
Scripts (or Mail::Audit plugins/settings for your webclient of
choice better) to the list
Later.
Mark.
--
s'' Mark Fowler London.pm Bath.pm
http://www.twoshortplanks.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
';use Term'Cap;$t=Tgetent Term'Cap{};print$t-Tputs(cl);for$w(split/ +/
){for(0..30){$|=print$t-Tgoto(cm,$_,$y). $w;select$k,$k,$k,.03}$y+=2}
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 04:16:22PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: I have heard Mr Pratchet's name cited as the guilty party for the increased use of footnotes, especially as comic asides. I'd claim that Mr Pratchett, as with so many other things, stole that one from Mr Adams... Alex -- Four pints of milk, a turkey baster and some plastic tubing, that's all you need. http://www.cpio.org/~grimoire http://www.livejournal.com/users/diffrentcolours
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK,London]
Mark Fowler wrote: Sue wrote: Mark Fowler wrote: A pint (or five) to the first person that writes a Mail::Audit script / PINE[2] display filter that can detect jeopardy quoting and... I find the widespread practice of cutesy footnoting to be far more irritating than any of the other complaints which have come through my inbox today. Erk, sorry. Didn't know it bothered you. How about I write you a Mail::Audit script that can fix that too ;-) . It doesn't, really. I was just being evil.
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
I understand exactly why you feel this way. You are blinkered in feeling you are right and everyone should agree with your particular way of writing emails. You actually believe that people will change the way they write in order with your own views. I believe you are mistaken and you will learn this with time I spy a parallell between this and refusing mails from mailservers from some people on the list because he doesn't agree with their network configuration =) I believe the phrase was If they want to mail it to me they'll fix it. On the contrary, it has made sure I leave it exactly the same way as it is now =) red
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 03:59:04PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: What is not good is that the hyperlink takes you to a page which has all the footnotes for the entire chapter on it, so you have to scroll to find the right one. What *should* happen is that the hyperlink should pop up the footnote over the top of the body text. Bah. Another way[1] is to have the footnote immediately below the paragraph ini which it appears. This isn't so bad in practice and the most likely course of action (you want to read it immediately afterwards) is well served. I think you can also include the footnote as a tool tip or similiar so it appears on a mouseOver. Paul [1] I believe O'Reilly use this scheme in their HTML books.
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 05:27:36AM -0700, Dave Cross wrote: people on the internet aren't like that these days. Most people happily post using MS Outlook because that's what they get given at work. Bloody hell, Dave, can't you use an email client that includes In-Reply-To: headers so it displays threads? I mean, lordy! :-), Paul
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]
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
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite),UK, London]
Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: their mail clients use top quoting. Did your friends do usability studies? I did and asked a non-technical user in the pub about this and they prefered top posting. 'Top quoting' is a mindset I think. When I hit followup with quoting, Gnus popped up a message window with the cursor placed nicely at the top of the quoted message, where it was easy for me to scroll through the quoted material excising the stuff that wasn't relevant before adding my comments. People who blame Outlook for doing the same thing would appear to be missing the point. Also, taking the example of an intelligent user who isn't technical, Gill really doesn't like Usenet style quoting; she finds it confusing and annoying. Her preference is to have a straightforward reply at the top of the message, where she doesn't have to scroll through irrelevant crap that she's already read, but can, if she wants to, scroll down and refer to the original message. I, of course, disagree. But hers is a considered opinion and I respect it. Telling her she's flat out wrong is not really an option. Telling her that she will probably annoy any long time news and email users with this kind of quoting is fine, she tends not to swap mail with such people. But dammit people (This is, of course addressed to more than just Steve), take a chill pill would you. It's not the end of the world if someone doesn't quote how you want them to. And hectoring them *really* isn't going to help. Makes me wonder why I bothered to contribute really... -- Piers
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
Steve == Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve I think Microsoft have done usability studies on this which is why Steve their mail clients use top quoting. Did your friends do usability Steve studies? I did and asked a non-technical user in the pub about this Steve and they prefered top posting. As I said in comp.lang.perl.misc... The quoted material is either relevant or it isn't. If it's relevant, then your comments should be quoted near what it's related to, so I can read them together, in the proper order to understand the context of your response. If it isn't, DON'T QUOTE IT. So there's never a reason to top-quote. Except to demonstrate what a lazy bast*rd the poster is. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: Steve == Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve No there are degrees of relevance and I would argue there are at least Steve two distinct subcases of relevant material. Steve * quoted material is directly relevant and required to make sense of Steve the new text - use bottom posting to address points on a line by Steve line base. The traditional way. Steve * quoted material is relevant as optional background material which Steve may be interesting to some (who can scroll) for context but the new Steve text is basically a stand alone article - use top posting. Think of Steve the quoted text in this case as an optional extra added to make Steve people's lives easier. People that wish to drill down through Steve scrolling can. This is where URLs come in. It's either relevant, or it should be NOT INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE. Put it in an attachment if you must. But putting it *inline* in the same message makes you look stupid. Inline ASCII is to be prefered to URLs for several reasons. You are assuming the person is reading the mail online with web access whereas they could be offline on the train. Also URLs break and go 404. Also in the context of a debate someone could also retrospectively change the URL content. Attachments too can be problematic in many programs (eg. the problems with the PGP/MIME signing by mutt with many programs). Plain inline ASCII isn't exciting but it certainly isn't stupid but reliable and actually likely to work. And it is often is the case that when *I* reply to that, it *does* become relevant, and now *I* have to spend time moving stuff around and cutting and pasting. But if you'd just done it right in the first place, my reply to your reply to the original message is *easy*, not *difficult*. I think you are really missing the point here. I am not saying top quoting is always good (after all I am not doing it now) but that it has occasional uses. You on the otherhand are saying it's always bad, by definition, regardless of context, which just seems to me dogmatic and unsupported by anything you or anyone else has said on this thread. How friggin hard is it for you and your recipients to hit the page down key. Really. And/or trim the quoted material. Really. When I top quote I _do_ trim the quoted material as I did in the original post if you care to go back and read it. Trimming isn't the issue and is unrelated to where you quote. I have seen plenty of people bottom quote and not trim. You are being rude to me, as the reader. And I will interpret that as you being someone who is not really interested in communicating with me. If you want to make that impression, go right ahead. But don't expect me to trust your answers, or respect your observations, because apparently your purpose is for something *other* than clean easy communication. But I think top quoting (in rare circumstances) does aid clean easy communication. This has been the basis of my whole argument. Don't think of top quoting as such but more as an occasional extended footnote if that makes it easier for you to accept. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] humans hardly ever learn from the experience of others. they learn - when they do, which isn't often - on their own, the hard way. -- robert heinlein
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: Steve == Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve I think Microsoft have done usability studies on this which is why Steve their mail clients use top quoting. Did your friends do usability Steve studies? I did and asked a non-technical user in the pub about this Steve and they prefered top posting. As I said in comp.lang.perl.misc... The quoted material is either relevant or it isn't. No there are degrees of relevance and I would argue there are at least two distinct subcases of relevant material. * quoted material is directly relevant and required to make sense of the new text - use bottom posting to address points on a line by line base. The traditional way. * quoted material is relevant as optional background material which may be interesting to some (who can scroll) for context but the new text is basically a stand alone article - use top posting. Think of the quoted text in this case as an optional extra added to make people's lives easier. People that wish to drill down through scrolling can. I don't see any reason why email styles should be fixed so rigidly as you think. Natural language evolves over time and I don't see any reason why email writing style also should be static. The quantity of email has increased greatly over time (and quality decreased) and I think some of the practices of the 1980s have to change to reflect this. Unless you want to keep worshipping the Net Ancestors of the 1980s for ever you have to accept that (like choice of text editor and reply-to munging) quoting style is a religious issue with no right or wrong answer and debate on the topic rapidly degenerates to mere assertion and counter-assertion. So there's never a reason to top-quote. Except to demonstrate what a lazy bast*rd the poster is. Actually it's harder for me to top-quote because my email client quotes traditionally. I do it, when I believe it helps, to reduce the scrolling work load on the reader and not to wind people up. 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? -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] progress (n.): the process through which the internet has evolved from smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of smart terminals.
Re: Netiquette was Re: [Perl Jobs] CGI / MySQL developer (onsite), UK, London]
Steve == Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve No there are degrees of relevance and I would argue there are at least Steve two distinct subcases of relevant material. Steve * quoted material is directly relevant and required to make sense of Steve the new text - use bottom posting to address points on a line by Steve line base. The traditional way. Steve * quoted material is relevant as optional background material which Steve may be interesting to some (who can scroll) for context but the new Steve text is basically a stand alone article - use top posting. Think of Steve the quoted text in this case as an optional extra added to make Steve people's lives easier. People that wish to drill down through Steve scrolling can. This is where URLs come in. It's either relevant, or it should be NOT INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE. Put it in an attachment if you must. But putting it *inline* in the same message makes you look stupid. And it is often is the case that when *I* reply to that, it *does* become relevant, and now *I* have to spend time moving stuff around and cutting and pasting. But if you'd just done it right in the first place, my reply to your reply to the original message is *easy*, not *difficult*. How friggin hard is it for you and your recipients to hit the page down key. Really. And/or trim the quoted material. Really. You are being rude to me, as the reader. And I will interpret that as you being someone who is not really interested in communicating with me. If you want to make that impression, go right ahead. But don't expect me to trust your answers, or respect your observations, because apparently your purpose is for something *other* than clean easy communication. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
