[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

[mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk]

Well - that's useful - I didn't know that. This is checking whether it 
works.

Original Message
From: howardpos...@ca.rr.com
Date: 06/09/2017 9:43 
To: "LutList"<lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Subj: [LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

And while we’re on protocol, if you hit “reply all” and then eliminate 
all the addresses other than the list’s, the other listers don’t get 
your message more than once.

> On Sep 6, 2017, at 12:44 AM, mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
> 
> 
> I agree with Martyn too. We have had this discussion about protocol 
so 
> many times before and no one will agree. 
> It is much better if people put their reply at the top whatever may 
> have been de riguer in the past. In every way this makes more sense 
- 
> and is especially helpful in the archived messages.
> And pace Ralf it would be better if people didn't try to put in 
> diacritical marks if this renders their messages gobbleggook.
> You have to be practical about these things. We are trying to 
> communicate with one another.
> Monica



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

[howard posner]

> On Sep 6, 2017, at 3:07 AM, Ralf Mattes  wrote:
> 
> 
> Am Mittwoch, 06. September 2017 11:43 CEST, howard posner 
>  schrieb: 
> 
>> And while we’re on protocol, if you hit “reply all” and then eliminate all 
>> the addresses other than the list’s, the other listers don’t get your 
>> message more than once.
> 
> That problem is easy to solve: the list admin would have to configure the 
> list to only send out the
> list mail address in the reply-to header. Not only would this prevent double 
> mails, it would also
> hide the original sender's mail address which, in times of spam harvesters,  
> some might find good 
> to do.

It’s also easy to solve without the list administrator doing anything.  It took 
me about a second to eliminate your name from the “To” list just now.



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

[Ralf Mattes]

 
Am Mittwoch, 06. September 2017 11:43 CEST, howard posner 
 schrieb: 
 
> And while we’re on protocol, if you hit “reply all” and then eliminate all 
> the addresses other than the list’s, the other listers don’t get your message 
> more than once.

That problem is easy to solve: the list admin would have to configure the list 
to only send out the
list mail address in the reply-to header. Not only would this prevent double 
mails, it would also
hide the original sender's mail address which, in times of spam harvesters,  
some might find good 
to do.

 Cheers, Ralf Mattes
  
 





To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

[howard posner]

And while we’re on protocol, if you hit “reply all” and then eliminate all the 
addresses other than the list’s, the other listers don’t get your message more 
than once.

> On Sep 6, 2017, at 12:44 AM, mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
> 
> 
> I agree with Martyn too. We have had this discussion about protocol so 
> many times before and no one will agree. 
> It is much better if people put their reply at the top whatever may 
> have been de riguer in the past. In every way this makes more sense - 
> and is especially helpful in the archived messages.
> And pace Ralf it would be better if people didn't try to put in 
> diacritical marks if this renders their messages gobbleggook.
> You have to be practical about these things. We are trying to 
> communicate with one another.
> Monica



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

[Ralf Mattes]

 
Am Mittwoch, 06. September 2017 10:32 CEST, Matthew Daillie 
 schrieb: 
 
> Isn't there a cost issue too regarding server storage space?

Given the low price of todays harddisks that price is neglectible.
But there _is_ a cost factor: I used to read my mail on my cellphone and,
at least over here, most cellphone providers do either charge by volume
or limit traffic (with rather high upgrade prices). A few years ago, being 
rather
anoyed by spurious quoting, I did run a (rather unscientific) test and ended up
with a signal/noise ration between 1/5 and 1/10. Quoting an entire email thread 
only to add "yeah, that's funny" is borderline rude.

This is not a technical issue: not removing quoted text is lazyness on the side 
of the 
sender that results in extra effort for the receiver. Is the quoted text 
relevant to the answer?
Does one have to scroll through all of it and search for important information? 
If not,
why did the sender leave it in?

Just my 0.2$

  Ralf Mattes

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?






To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

[Matthew Daillie]

Isn't there a cost issue too regarding server storage space?
Best,
Matthew

> On Sep 6, 2017, at 0:40, "G. C."  wrote:
> 
>   Dear lutelist,
>   is there a way to remove all those endless quotings of earlier mails in
>   the string, as well as the (also) endless links that have been
>   displayed in the previous, (endless) mails? Is there no way to get yhe
>   messages slimmer?
>   B.R.
>   G.



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

[mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk]

I agree with Martyn too. We have had this discussion about protocol so 
many times before and no one will agree. 
It is much better if people put their reply at the top whatever may 
have been de riguer in the past. In every way this makes more sense - 
and is especially helpful in the archived messages.
And pace Ralf it would be better if people didn't try to put in 
diacritical marks if this renders their messages gobbleggook.
You have to be practical about these things. We are trying to 
communicate with one another.
Monica


Original Message
From: howardpos...@ca.rr.com
Date: 06/09/2017 7:21 
To: "Lute net"<lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Subj: [LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

As always, I agree with Martyn.

> On Sep 6, 2017, at 12:10 AM, Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmartyn@cs.
dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> 
> The advantage of including all (or most) emails in a thread is that 
if
>   one wishes to be reminded of previous matters discussed in the 
thread,
>   it easy to simply scroll down - otherwise the laborious business of
>   trawling through previous emails on the topic is necessary
>   And if the latest is always put at the top of a thread the reader 
can
>   always choose not to read on.




To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

[howard posner]

As always, I agree with Martyn.

> On Sep 6, 2017, at 12:10 AM, Martyn Hodgson  
> wrote:
> 
> The advantage of including all (or most) emails in a thread is that if
>   one wishes to be reminded of previous matters discussed in the thread,
>   it easy to simply scroll down - otherwise the laborious business of
>   trawling through previous emails on the topic is necessary
>   And if the latest is always put at the top of a thread the reader can
>   always choose not to read on.




To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

[Martyn Hodgson]

   Of course it's perfectly possible to limit the length of emails but who
   is to act as censor? Some topics may need greater length than others.
   The advantage of including all (or most) emails in a thread is that if
   one wishes to be reminded of previous matters discussed in the thread,
   it easy to simply scroll down - otherwise the laborious business of
   trawling through previous emails on the topic is necessary
   And if the latest is always put at the top of a thread the reader can
   always choose not to read on.
   In short, win -win for both those who just wish to scan the latest
   message in a topic (and presumably remember all previous) and those who
   may wish to remind themselves of early comments.
   regards,
   Martyn
 __

   From: Wayne 
   To: Lute net 
   Sent: Wednesday, 6 September 2017, 0:20
   Subject: [LUTE] Shorter emails
   I suppose I could make the robot cut everything off after 50 lines.
 Wayne
   > Begin forwarded message:
   >
   > From: "G. C." <[1]kalei...@gmail.com>
   > Subject: [LUTE] Shorter emails
   > Date: September 5, 2017 at 6:40:36 PM EDT
   > To: Lutelist <[2]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
   >
   >  Dear lutelist,
   >  is there a way to remove all those endless quotings of earlier mails
   in
   >  the string, as well as the (also) endless links that have been
   >  displayed in the previous, (endless) mails? Is there no way to get
   yhe
   >  messages slimmer?
   >  B.R.
   >  G.
   >
   >  --
   >
   >
   > To get on or off this list see list information at
   > [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   >
   --

   --

References

   1. mailto:kalei...@gmail.com
   2. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

[Stephen Fryer]

It is considered basic courtesy (or was).

Stephen Fryer


On 2017-09-05 6:44 PM, Ed Durbrow wrote:

On Sep 6, 2017, at 7:40 AM, G. C.  wrote:

  Is there no way to get the messages slimmer?

Sure. Just as I have trimmed your message, every individual can cut out 
unnecessary repetition of previous emails. I’m with you.

Ed Durbrow





To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

[Stephen Fryer]

People could simply edit out the extraneous material when replying.  It 
isn't difficult.


Stephen Fryer


On 2017-09-05 4:26 PM, G. C. wrote:

No, Please, Wayne, that would be to destroy eventually long, but
interesting mails, and would infringe. It is not the size, its the
redundancy I'm talking about, which could perhaps somehow be reduced,
so the postings become easier to scan





To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

[Ed Durbrow]

On Sep 6, 2017, at 7:40 AM, G. C.  wrote:
>  Is there no way to get the messages slimmer?

Sure. Just as I have trimmed your message, every individual can cut out 
unnecessary repetition of previous emails. I’m with you.

Ed Durbrow
Saitama, Japan
http://www.youtube.com/user/edurbrow?feature=watch
https://soundcloud.com/ed-durbrow
http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/








--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Shorter emails

[G. C.]

   No, Please, Wayne, that would be to destroy eventually long, but
   interesting mails, and would infringe. It is not the size, its the
   redundancy I'm talking about, which could perhaps somehow be reduced,
   so the postings become easier to scan

   --


To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html