Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:59:55AM -0600, David Young wrote:
> One reason email software is not more useful is that because too many
> smart people wage a losing war on the new, foreign ways of email instead
> of programming filters that transform top-posted, red, 5000-column
> emails to the style of email that they want to read.  That's just sad.

What you do not grasp -- and this is not surprising, many people
do not grasp this -- is that there is a direct causal relationship
between proper netiquette and the usefulness of email.

Let me give you one example, and then suggest, as part of further study,
that you look at the basics of netiquette (such as: never top-posting,
indenting/attributing quotes properly, and so on) that you consider
how each of those has a similar backing rationale -- a rationale which
made sense once upon a time, and still makes sense today.

Let's consider full-quoting.  *Why* does it matter?

Decades ago, when it was first recognized that full-quoting was a terrible
idea, part of that recognition stemmed from the scarcity and expense of
bandwidth and storage.  While some of us were lucky enough to have "fast"
circuits thanks to ARPAnet connections, many others were sending email over
UUCP which in turn was carried over 300/1200 baud dialup connections which
in turn incurred long-distance call charges proportionate to the volume
of traffic.  It was recognized, by thoughful, considerate people who
valued email as a communications medium for all, not just the lucky few,
that the simple courtesy of trimming excess quoted material -- a few
seconds' work for any minimally-competent user -- could and would save
money and time not only for many recipients, but for those handling the
email in transit (neither senders nor recipients) who were generously
contributing some of their scarce resources to facilitate communication.

It was clearly the courteous thing to do, which is why those who failed
to do it were frequently chastised for their discourtesy.

Fast-forward to today.  And while the underlying technologies have
changed, the virtue of frugality hasn't.  Because there are still people
who are on relatively low-bandwidth/high-cost connections, and there
are still people generously contributing their resources to facilitate
third-party email communication.  Moreover, and this is something that
wasn't a concern all those years ago, email is now quite often a conduit
for abuse and attacks (e.g., spam, phish, malware) so there are, as I
presume everyone knows, numerous resources deployed to scrutinize
email messages for those -- and in the case of many, resources used
are proportional to message size. [1]  Consider also -- in the case
of mailing lists -- the archives.  Both their size and their suitability
for search indexing are adversely affected by excessive and incorrect
quoting. [2]  Consider also the situation of those who are, unfortunately,
saddled with email storage quotas. [3]  Consider also...ah, but by now,
the thoughtful reader will already be enumerating his/her own list
of instances where excessive quoting has a direct, if small, impact
on the usefulness of email as a communications medium.

In other words, all these years later, bandwidth and storage and human
time *still* matter.  In different ways, of course, but not everyone is
so lucky as to have mail accounts without quotas, terabytes of backing
storage, plenty of free/cheap bandwidth, and lots of free time.

Those who do should always be mindful of those who don't.

Now there will be people who will observe that the aggregate cost of
all this may be tiny.   And that the inconvenience to users they will
never meet (that is: by wasting their valuable personal and professional
time by forcing them to scroll through excess quoted material over and
and over and over again) is of no concern.

Perhaps in some cases the cost IS tiny.  But the aggregate total
over all email messages is enormous.  Exercise for the reader: go
through the last month's traffic on *this* list.  Trim out all the
excess quoted material.  Compare size to original.  Calculate difference
in bandwidth charges for someone reading their email on a mobile device
connected to a service which charges by-the-byte. [4]

And as to the inconvenience to users they will never meet, there is
no way to truly quantify that.  Nor is there any way to compel senders
to take it into consideration -- except to appeal to their basic
human decency, and ask that they THINK about the many recipients of
their messages...and put their situations, needs, resources, time
ahead of their own.  The few seconds that it takes any competent email
user to trim quoted material is a small thing compared to the large
amount of aggregate time spent by recipients scrolling through it...again.
And again.  And again.

We call that consideration "courtesy".  And being courteous to people you
will never meet, for that matter, people whose existence you may never
even be aware of (because they 

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Chris Bannister]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 07:08:11PM +, Tony's unattended mail wrote:
> Now, if we consider lousy tools (tools that either fail to facilitate
> standards or needlessly impose extra work on humans), then it can only
> be the contrary of what you're saying.  "Selfish" authors do what is
> convenient for /themselves/, not the reader.  Wrapped text is *easier*
> to write because the author must also read the text as they compose
> it.  Wrapping it during composition and then shipping it as-is is
> therefore a selfish act.  And when dealing with lousy tools, unwrapped
> text is *more difficult* to compose, because as it's written the tool
> is not making it easy for the author to read their own message.

What a load of crap. Wrapped text is not easier to write, you have to
configure it!  Unwrapped text is a lot easier to write because you don't
have to configure it. Also, if the author doesn't find it easy to read
their own message, how on earth is anyone else going to find it easy to
read? And yet they still send it. Now, THAT'S selfish!

I'm guessing that your idea of a tool that isn't lousy would be Mr
Paperclip. :D

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Nicolas Rachinsky]

* Peter Davis  [2012-11-20 13:37 -0500]:
> Most workplaces are using email to communicate, and they want maximum
> efficiency in that. Users want a way to get a message across quickly,
> as opposed to trying to create a beautiful and literate archive.

These "efficient" mails usually look this way:

| Yes
|
| 
...
| a or b?
|
| c or d?
...


Nicolas
-- 
http://www.rachinsky.de/nicolas

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Derek Martin]

On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 09:45:48AM +, Tony's unattended mail wrote:
> > So not only to you need to establish a new standard, but you need to
> > update all the existing tools to support it.
> 
> No you don't.  Tools become deprecated.  Accept it.

A format which does what you described has existed since 1996 and is
used by no one.  Your format has already failed.  Accept it.

> > As a practical matter, the benefit of whatever difference in format
> > you're about to suggest is vastly outweighed by the monumental
> > amount of work required to make the world support it (AND SEE
> > BELOW).
> 
> I disagree.  

Congratulations on joining the "myopic and selfish" club.  A
definition does not become a "standard" until it is widely accepted;
that is inherent in the definition of "standard".  No matter the merit
of your proposal, its practical value is zero uless you can make
others care.  I've already explained why they have no reason to,
so good luck with that.

> You gave up.  That will fail you every time.

I didn't give up.  I recognized that one who can accept only idealism
is a fool, and arguing with a fool is folly; thus continuing to argue
with you is of no value.  That's always a win.  My failure was in
getting sucked back in.

-- 
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.



pgpRJ4nH8GXRW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Erik Christiansen]

On 01.12.12 09:45, Tony's unattended mail wrote:
> On 2012-11-30, Derek Martin  wrote:
> > Only because I got sick of replying to your nonsense.
> 
> You gave up.  That will fail you every time.

Long threads have a tendency to degenerate into a trailing BS session,
but they don't have to.

If you both gave up this pointless drivel, at least on-list, the global
sum of visible foolishness would decline. We pretty nearly all thank you
in advance, if I'm not mistaken.

Erik

-- 
If what they've been doing hasn't solved the problem, tell them to
do something else.
 - Gerald Weinberg, "The Secrets of Consulting"

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Tony's unattended mail]

On 2012-11-30, Derek Martin  wrote:
>
> I agree; good reasons for the existing standards have been put
> forth.  Arguments against those standards and said reasons have
> contained fallacious logic.

This is the first such claim.  No one has yet called out any fallacy
in logic with regards to allowing the reader to control the width.

OTOH, this does not mean you cannot claim it now.  If you think it's a
fallacy, explain, and perhaps you'll have something.  Until then, you
can't win a debate by citing points that were not expressed.

>> > Nearly all of them have been proposed by people of limited and brief
>> > experience, people without substantial experience in large and
>> > diverse environments, people who do not understand how email
>> > actually works, people who do not grasp the scalability issues
>> > involved, people who have never read the RFCs, people who have never
>> > used more than one email client or operating system, people who make
>> > the serious mistake of reading their email with a web browser,
>>=20
>> This is a false cause fallacy. =20
>
> False.  This is not a statement of cause,

No, it is in fact a statement of cause.  You're just not finding it
because it was not an /explicit/ textbook form of "A is the cause of
B".  But it does in fact imply A from B, and it's backwards, and
therefore a logical fallacy.

> and not even an attempt at one.

Indeed it was not thought through.  That's part of the problem.

> It is an observation of fact, with an *implied* consequence:
> people with inadequate experience are unlikely to be qualified to
> make useful suggestions.

False cause.  Yes, poor choices is a consequence of an inexperienced
background.  The reverse is not necessarily so, so it's a lost cause.
It's a red herring because it fails to explicitly state a cause
effect, and the implied cause-effect is a false cause.

>> Advocates on either side could make this same errors in judgement,=20
>
> Absolutely.  However the advantage which those on the side of the
> established standards have is that their position is, almost
> universally, backed by those who actually do have the knowledge and
> experience to know better.

Actually being a proponent of a particular standard only indicates
indoctrination.  It takes a deeper understanding to see the failures
of a standard and support a platform to promote advancement of the
standard.

>> > people who simply want to do what they want to do because their
>> > world view is myopic and selfish,
>>=20
>> Actually it's quite the contrary.  Now before going into that, first
>> you should understand a proper tool can make composition equally
>> simple, regardless of wrapping style. =20
>
> This point is irrelevant, because the craftsman can use only the tools
> available to him.

Nonsense.  The craftsman /makes/ tools.  The craftman who only uses
what's available is no craftsman.  Not that it matters- to make
standards driven by tools is like writing requirements based on the
code -- it's backwards.

> Or he can invent his own; except that if he needs someone else to be
> able to work with the product of his labor, then he needs to make
> certain his product is capable of being used by the tools they want
> to use.  Otherwise he may find himself sitting alone in his workshop
> with a product no one wants (SEE BELOW).

The chicken-egg problem you claim is delusional.  You do not need a
partner to make a product.  A single individual or single organization
can even craft a whole suite of tools from scratch if they so please,
and they can be the first to do so.

> There are literally thousands of tools exist for handling e-mail,
> and NONE OF THEM WORK THE WAY YOU WANT.

This is conventional wisdom.  Again, the merit of a standard should
not be bounded by the capability of existing tools.

> So not only to you need to establish a new standard, but you need to
> update all the existing tools to support it.

No you don't.  Tools become deprecated.  Accept it.

> As a practical matter, the benefit of whatever difference in format
> you're about to suggest is vastly outweighed by the monumental
> amount of work required to make the world support it (AND SEE
> BELOW).

I disagree.  This is trivially simple text manipulation.  Your
perceived effort is only monumental because you believe every tool in
existence must be updated.  And you believe this in a world where many
tools are non-compliant as it is, in some cases due to lack of
maintainer motivation, and in other cases by design.  This is no
reason to resist improvements on standards.

> Any of the points you make which follow from this one are therefore
> invalid as a practical fact, regardless of whether they may be
> correct from the perspective of formal logic.

An opinion cannot be "invalid", only a fact can.  If I've stated a
matter of fact that you want to challenge, feel free.

This is why I like quoting.  It enables readers to know what you're
talking about.  Dodging this approach by hiding wha

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Tony's unattended mail]

On 2012-11-30, Gray Calhoun  wrote:
>>
>>Etiquette varies based on the domain (e.g. where you are).  There is
>>not one single etiquette for the universe.  In Japan, tipping is often
>>regarded as extremely offensive.  In the US, tipping is often
>>expected.
>
> This is true, etiquette varies with the domain.  I haven't been on this
> email list for long, but I'm astonished that there's serious debate 
> that the established email etiquette for the Mutt mailing list is 
> anything but "72 to 76 characters per line."  Even if there's no FAQ
> for the mailing list (that I can find).

Are you attempting to claim that in a general discussion about email
accross the internet only mutt-users etiquette can be discussed on the
mutt mailing list?  Mutt is not only used to read the mutt-users
mailing list-- that's the error in your judgement.  Mutt can be used
to participate on a microsoft-fans mailing list, if one desires.

> But, please, if you think there's a need, feel free to start another
> mailing list for Mutt users that explicitly states a different
> convention for line length.  I'm sure there will be massive uptake.

If you think there's a need to restrict the Mutt tool to only
accommodate participation on mutt-users, your work is cut out for
making that convincing.

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Derek Martin]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 07:08:11PM +, Tony's unattended mail wrote:
> On 2012-11-30, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:
> > I have heard myriad arguments advanced for abandoning or modifying
> > email etiquette over the past ten, twenty, thirty years.  None of
> > them have ever been accompanied by a convincing rationale that
> > demonstrates why the proposed changes are substantive improvements
> > that quantitatively and qualitatively improve the use of email as a
> > communications medium.
> 
> Failing to be convinced can be due to meritless claims, or it can be
> well-grounded claims that are given to a stubborn opponent who resists
> change.  When an argument is irrefuted, or refuted purely with
> fallacious logic, it's certainly the the latter case.  And this is
> what has been demonstrated here.

I agree; good reasons for the existing standards have been put forth.
Arguments against those standards and said reasons have contained
fallacious logic.

> > Nearly all of them have been proposed by people of limited and brief
> > experience, people without substantial experience in large and
> > diverse environments, people who do not understand how email
> > actually works, people who do not grasp the scalability issues
> > involved, people who have never read the RFCs, people who have never
> > used more than one email client or operating system, people who make
> > the serious mistake of reading their email with a web browser,
> 
> This is a false cause fallacy.  

False.  This is not a statement of cause, and not even an attempt at
one.  It is an observation of fact, with an *implied* consequence:
people with inadequate experience are unlikely to be qualified to make
useful suggestions.

> Advocates on either side could make this same errors in judgement, 

Absolutely.  However the advantage which those on the side of the
established standards have is that their position is, almost
universally, backed by those who actually do have the knowledge and
experience to know better.

> > people who simply want to do what they want to do because their
> > world view is myopic and selfish,
> 
> Actually it's quite the contrary.  Now before going into that, first
> you should understand a proper tool can make composition equally
> simple, regardless of wrapping style.  

This point is irrelevant, because the craftsman can use only the tools
available to him.  Or he can invent his own; except that if he needs
someone else to be able to work with the product of his labor, then he
needs to make certain his product is capable of being used by the
tools they want to use.  Otherwise he may find himself sitting alone
in his workshop with a product no one wants (SEE BELOW).

There are literally thousands of tools exist for handling e-mail, and
NONE OF THEM WORK THE WAY YOU WANT.  So not only to you need to
establish a new standard, but you need to update all the existing
tools to support it.  As a practical matter, the benefit of whatever
difference in format you're about to suggest is vastly outweighed by
the monumental amount of work required to make the world support it
(AND SEE BELOW).  Any of the points you make which follow from this
one are therefore invalid as a practical fact, regardless of whether
they may be correct from the perspective of formal logic.

> > people who have never bothered to learn and understand proper email
> > etiquette,
> 
> Etiquette varies based on the domain (e.g. where you are).  

However for mailing lists, the 72-character line wrap and
conversational quoting are fairly universal, for previously discussed
good reason.

> > What we do not see are any of them advancing cogent, carefully-made
> > arguments for change.  That is NOT to say such arguments don't exist:
> > perhaps they do.  Perhaps there are changes that *should* be made.
> 
> Then you have not been paying attention.  The point was already made
> on this list just a few days ago to use an unambiguous syntax that
> gives each reader the freedom to choose how wide their text is (as
> opposed to being force-fed the authors choice), and this point remains
> irrefuted.  

I just refuted it.

> Detail on how to completely remove all traces of ambiguity was
> given, and so far uncountered.

Only because I got sick of replying to your nonsense.  It's
incompatible with existing tools.  It is unlikely to be adopted *by
anyone*, because it does not provide a sufficiently substantial
benefit to warrant the monumental effort to be implemented globally.
It must additionally be an entirely separate format than used by any
of the existing plain text formats, as otherwise if you attempt to use
it as one of the existing standards, it will immediately break ALL
EXISTING TOOLS.  That is itself a hindrance to adoption.

In point of fact, we already have such a format, and it's even
supported by Mutt.  It's called enriched text, corresponding to a MIME
type of "text/enriched", and is used by VIRTUALLY NO ONE.  That fact
is unfortunate -- it's quite good;

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Gray Calhoun]

Tony's unattended mail: (07:08PM on Fri, Nov 30)

On 2012-11-30, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:

[snip]

people who have never bothered to learn and understand proper email
etiquette,


Etiquette varies based on the domain (e.g. where you are).  There is
not one single etiquette for the universe.  In Japan, tipping is often
regarded as extremely offensive.  In the US, tipping is often
expected.


This is true, etiquette varies with the domain.  I haven't been on this
email list for long, but I'm astonished that there's serious debate 
that the established email etiquette for the Mutt mailing list is 
anything but "72 to 76 characters per line."  Even if there's no FAQ

for the mailing list (that I can find).

But, please, if you think there's a need, feel free to start another 
mailing list for Mutt users that explicitly states a different 
convention for line length.  I'm sure there will be massive uptake.


--Gray

--
Gray Calhoun, Assistant Professor of Economics at Iowa State 
http://gray.clhn.co // 467 Heady Hall

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Tony's unattended mail]

On 2012-11-30, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:
>
> I have heard myriad arguments advanced for abandoning or modifying
> email etiquette over the past ten, twenty, thirty years.  None of
> them have ever been accompanied by a convincing rationale that
> demonstrates why the proposed changes are substantive improvements
> that quantitatively and qualitatively improve the use of email as a
> communications medium.

Failing to be convinced can be due to meritless claims, or it can be
well-grounded claims that are given to a stubborn opponent who resists
change.  When an argument is irrefuted, or refuted purely with
fallacious logic, it's certainly the the latter case.  And this is
what has been demonstrated here.

It gets interesting when both sides are using sound logic (which is
absolutely possible).  But when one side has only made illogical
statements, they lost whether they realise it or not, at which point
refusing to accept the loss is merely another different kind of lapse
in competency.

> Nearly all of them have been proposed by people of limited and brief
> experience, people without substantial experience in large and
> diverse environments, people who do not understand how email
> actually works, people who do not grasp the scalability issues
> involved, people who have never read the RFCs, people who have never
> used more than one email client or operating system, people who make
> the serious mistake of reading their email with a web browser,

This is a false cause fallacy.  Advocates on either side could make
this same errors in judgement, by speculating the above mentioned
incompetencies are working on their opponent as a result of a
perceived foolish thesis.  You would first have to establish the
attributes above *before* taking into account the opposing stance.
The opposite direction does not work for anything other than a failed
attempt at character assasination.

> people who simply want to do what they want to do because their
> world view is myopic and selfish,

Actually it's quite the contrary.  Now before going into that, first
you should understand a proper tool can make composition equally
simple, regardless of wrapping style.  So it's a bogus point from the
standpoint of good quality tooling.

Now, if we consider lousy tools (tools that either fail to facilitate
standards or needlessly impose extra work on humans), then it can only
be the contrary of what you're saying.  "Selfish" authors do what is
convenient for /themselves/, not the reader.  Wrapped text is *easier*
to write because the author must also read the text as they compose
it.  Wrapping it during composition and then shipping it as-is is
therefore a selfish act.  And when dealing with lousy tools, unwrapped
text is *more difficult* to compose, because as it's written the tool
is not making it easy for the author to read their own message.

> people who have never bothered to learn and understand proper email
> etiquette,

Etiquette varies based on the domain (e.g. where you are).  There is
not one single etiquette for the universe.  In Japan, tipping is often
regarded as extremely offensive.  In the US, tipping is often
expected.

Someone here also tried claiming that there is one single global
etiquette for the world.  They attempted to claim that whatever
etiquette is first established is the correct one to impose on
everyone.  Yet Americans do not abolish tipping simply because Japan's
tipping etiquette pre-dates theirs.

> We of course see these same people top-posting, full-quoting,
> sending email marked up with HTML, failing to wrap their lines,
> carelessly sending mailing list followups both on-list and off-list,
> and engaging in similar rude, lazy, impolite, stupid and completely
> unprofessional behavior.

Of course it would be a fallacy to try to group "evil ideas" together,
and pin them on the opposition (who may just as well oppose these
approaches).  The need for such a maneuver would clearly spotlight the
overall weakness in ones thesis.

> What we do not see are any of them advancing cogent, carefully-made
> arguments for change.  That is NOT to say such arguments don't exist:
> perhaps they do.  Perhaps there are changes that *should* be made.

Then you have not been paying attention.  The point was already made
on this list just a few days ago to use an unambiguous syntax that
gives each reader the freedom to choose how wide their text is (as
opposed to being force-fed the authors choice), and this point remains
irrefuted.  Detail on how to completely remove all traces of ambiguity
was given, and so far uncountered.

> But 100% of the onus for demonstrating that in a compelling fashion,
> including a full explanation of how such changes will make email
> better AND a careful examination of the drawbacks to such proposed
> changes, rests with those advocating for change.  Simply put, they
> must prove it or admit that they cannot make the case.

The case has been made.  At this point we're still waiting for so

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Rich Kulawiec]

I've been following this discussion and I have a lengthy comment.

Let me begin by quoting Robert Heinlein:

"Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid
excessive wear.  Honorifics and formal politeness provide
lubrication where people rub together.  Often the very young,
the untraveled, the naive, the unsophisticated deplore these
formalities as 'empty,' 'meaningless,' or 'dishonest,' and scorn
to use them.  No matter how pure their motives, they thereby
throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best."

I have heard myriad arguments advanced for abandoning or modifying email
etiquette over the past ten, twenty, thirty years.  None of them have
ever been accompanied by a convincing rationale that demonstrates why
the proposed changes are substantive improvements that quantitatively
and qualitatively improve the use of email as a communications medium.

Nearly all of them have been proposed by people of limited and brief
experience, people without substantial experience in large and diverse
environments, people who do not understand how email actually works,
people who do not grasp the scalability issues involved, people who have
never read the RFCs, people who have never used more than one email client
or operating system, people who make the serious mistake of reading their
email with a web browser, people who simply want to do what they want
to do because their world view is myopic and selfish, people who think
email should be instant messaging, people who naively think the web is
the most important part of the Internet, people who do not understand
that not everyone enjoys the high-speed/low-cost connectivity that they
do, people who use horribly broken and/or non-standards-compliant email
clients, people who think email should be used for large file transfer,
people who don't send/receive large volumes of messages, people who
don't participate in mailing lists, people who don't understand the
difference (and similarities) between Usenet and email, people who have
never bothered to learn and understand proper email etiquette, or all
of the above.

We of course see these same people top-posting, full-quoting, sending
email marked up with HTML, failing to wrap their lines, carelessly sending
mailing list followups both on-list and off-list, and engaging in similar
rude, lazy, impolite, stupid and completely unprofessional behavior.

What we do not see are any of them advancing cogent, carefully-made
arguments for change.  That is NOT to say such arguments don't exist:
perhaps they do.  Perhaps there are changes that *should* be made.

But 100% of the onus for demonstrating that in a compelling fashion,
including a full explanation of how such changes will make email better
AND a careful examination of the drawbacks to such proposed changes,
rests with those advocating for change.  Simply put, they must prove it
or admit that they cannot make the case.

I'm a huge fan of change.  But I'm NOT a fan of gratuitous, ill-considered
change in order to accomodate those individuals who want it merely
because they're selfish and/or inexperienced and/or ignorant.

In this particular case, for instance, those advocating a change from
the useful courtesy of sane line-wrap MUST provide a full justification
for that.  They must show how it's an improvement, not merely something
that *should* be done because it *can* be done.  They must fully enumerate
all of the consequences of such a change, taking into consideration for
example the extant universe of email clients, the command-line tools used
to process email (after all: anyone who doesn't work at the command line
can hardly claim to be knowledgeable or professional -- at best, they
are an amateur, a dilettante, a newbie), the pre- and post-processing
performed by MUAs, MTAs, MDAs, etc. -- and more.

This will take considerable thought, research and time.  It's not a
simple issue.  It'd be convenient if it were...but it's not.

Some people will decline to do that, which is fine.  But such a refusal
is of course a full public admission that they've failed to make the
case and thus that even they, themselves, admit that their suggestion
has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

Far more briefly: prove it.

---rsk

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Remco Rijnders]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:52:23AM -0600, Jim wrote in 
<20121123175223.ga32...@gmail.com>:


Oh, and just out of curiousity, what language uses a slash for "OR" ?
I've always seen || (not sure if I've seen a single pipe for a logical
"OR" or not---my chemobrain[1]). is playing games with my head right
now.


Most human written language does :-)


pgpy6z6KHfobP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Rado Q]

=- Jamie Paul Griffin wrote on Fri 23.Nov'12 at 15:07:49 + -=

> [ Peter Davis Wrote On Fri 23.Nov'12 at 14:27:23 GMT ]
> 
> > The prevalent thinking in the software organizations I've been a
> > part of is that products, including software, should be designed for
> > the way users think and behave, instead of the other way around.

You refer to usability, and that's OK.
If it can be aided somehow by Software, all the better.
No misinterpretation: perfect.

> > There has been a surge of research on cognitive psychology,
> > "engineering psychology", human factors and related fields. The
> > goal is not mind-reading, but close. It is understanding how
> > human cognition works, and how we can design tools that users
> > will be able to control effectively.

Now ... what is the goal, the ideal situation you're striving for?
It sounds like all the brains should go into the code, and the
end-user may become brainless?

I like computer aid, but I don't want brainless users.
They should be aware of what they do & how things work, so _they_
are responsible for using their tools.

Because software is _not_ perfect.
Your approach assumes every end-user _can_ deal with everything it
receives. But there is always some case where re-formatting doesn't
or can't happen (outdated, broken, underdeveloped or misconfigured code).

So while re-formatting might work for most cases (on both sending
and receiving side), it wouldn't hurt any sender to consider those
exceptions rather than turn off the brain and put responsibility (or
blame) totally on others, be it the coders (of both sending and
receiving code/outout) or the receivers, and therefore not write
endless lines but break as you would with a paper-written letter.

Good software will re-format _even this_ as desired. If not now,
then at some future time when it truly can mind-read. ;)
But until then breaking manually wouldn't kill you.

> > But the fact that you refer to "end user's laziness and/or
> > stupidity" suggests that you have no acquaintance with this
> > approach to design.

I think you/we argue on orthogonal dimensions: usability vs.
responsibility/consideration.
You consider only those already in advantage with advanced code to
make _full/perfect_ use of usability, but neglect those not so
lucky, and rather demand from them to upgrade: eat or die.
Hmm...

> > Nothing wrong with that. Mutt is a great tool for what it does.
> > But to condemn the vast majority of email users, those who don't
> > follow the line length or bottom-posting conventions we've
> > discussed, for failing to comply with 40 year old strictures
> > advocated by an extremely small segment seems to me
> > counter-productive.

Again missing the point: we're not in a competition for the MUA market.
And it shouldn't turn into a "survival of the fittest", even though
both ends do it somehow on their own way already by disqualifying
the other for being different in goals, methods, priorities.



Jamie, independent of enjoyed personal notes, on a side note:

> I couldn't agree more. Well put Peter.

full-quote-"me, too" has been listed as bad practice, too.

-- 
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Derek Martin]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:27:23AM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:
> However, I also recognize that mutt is, to a large extent, obsolete.
> Of course it still appeals to those who cling to the text/plain,
> 72-characters-per-line limit model from the 1970's, but that
> audience is a smaller and smaller percentage of the email-using
> population. I don't have any data, but given the prevalence of
> email, I suspect that mutt users make up a minuscule portion of
> that.

There is some truth to what you say.  However the fact is,
conversational quoting is vastly more efficient FOR THE READER than
top posting, almost invariably, and statistically your mail has more
readers than authors, guaranteed.  So where is the efficiency?  Lines
with lengths of 80 or so characters are more efficient for the reader
to process, as has been shown by various studies.  To solve the
problem your way, you need to invent a mail client that automatically
understands what the author's intent is, and precisely which point the
author is responding to, and understand the author's language
sufficiently to automatically effectively quote and reformat the
e-mail regardless of how the author writes it, which I daresay is
impossible, at least at the moment.  Until it is possible, teaching
users to be considerate regarding their recipients and how to write
e-mails for maximally effective and efficient communication is your
ONLY OPTION.

So yes, spending time on this periodically on the list is both
worthwhile and on-topic.

-- 
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.



pgpxgRv6sv62B.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Jim Graham]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 03:43:21AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 01:21:18PM -0600, Jim Graham wrote:

> > Interesting, considering that Unix doesn't use CR/LF ... it uses a single
> > newline instead.  So I suppose that means that the entire e-mail, from
> > the "From " line to the end of the sig is all one paragraph, then?  :-)
> 
> I could say that the "/" quite often means "or". I'm aware that there
> are differences between the various OS as to what is a valid line
> terminator, as to what they are is not very relevant here. 

If this is replying to the post I think it is, I did not say anything
about "/" ... I referred to escaping the newline char with a BACKslash
("\").  Of course, this does not work for all languages (unless I missed
something somewhere), but it does work for several that I've used.  I
don't know where you pulled the slash comment from, but it wasn't from
my post.

Oh, and just out of curiousity, what language uses a slash for "OR" ?
I've always seen || (not sure if I've seen a single pipe for a logical
"OR" or not---my chemobrain[1]). is playing games with my head right
now.

Later,
   --jim

[1] from cancer #1

-- 
THE SCORE:  ME:  2  CANCER:  0
73 DE N5IAL (/4)MiSTie #49997  < Running Mac OS X Lion >
spooky1...@gmail.comICBM/Hurr.: 30.44406N 86.59909W

 No, I'm not going to explain it.  If you can't figure it
 out, you didn't want to know anyway...  --Larry Wall

Android Apps Listing at http://www.jstrack.org/barcodes.html

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Jamie Paul Griffin]

[ Peter Davis Wrote On Fri 23.Nov'12 at 14:27:23 GMT ]

> This will be my last comment on the subject, since straying off
> topic is, I think, a worse transgression than top posting or using
> long lines. I apologize for prolonging this. I'll try to be as
> explicit as I can, to clarify my views on this.
> 
> The prevalent thinking in the software organizations I've been a
> part of is that products, including software, should be designed for
> the way users think and behave, instead of the other way around.
> There has been a surge of research on cognitive psychology,
> "engineering psychology", human factors and related fields. The goal
> is not mind-reading, but close. It is understanding how human
> cognition works, and how we can design tools that users will be able
> to control effectively. It addresses such questions as "How can we
> direct users' attention to the most important information in a busy
> display?" or "How can we limit the cognitive load a task places on
> the user, so as not to impair his/her performance?" It's not
> possible to predict every possible mistake, but it is possible to
> determine what conditions lead to mistakes.
> 
> Simply put, the approach is to treat the users' mental and physical
> capabilities as a set of design constraints that must be imposed on
> any product. This field has a long way to go, but has already
> accomplished much. Makers of cell phones, tablets, cars, aircraft,
> air traffic control systems, medical devices, etc. all pay very
> close attention to this field.
> 
> But the fact that you refer to "end user's laziness and/or
> stupidity" suggests that you have no acquaintance with this approach
> to design.
> 
> To bring this back to the topic, mutt is one of several MTAs I have
> used. I currently have three separate mail archives (not including
> backups) and use mutt, MH, Thunderbird, GMail and other WebMail
> interfaces, and occasional others. Each of the clients has certain
> advantages and certain drawbacks. I like the fact that I can quickly
> go through a large volume of mail with mutt, using just single
> keystrokes for the most part, and the fact that I can easily pipe
> messages to perl scripts I've written for various routine tasks.
> 
> However, I also recognize that mutt is, to a large extent, obsolete.
> Of course it still appeals to those who cling to the text/plain,
> 72-characters-per-line limit model from the 1970's, but that
> audience is a smaller and smaller percentage of the email-using
> population. I don't have any data, but given the prevalence of
> email, I suspect that mutt users make up a minuscule portion of
> that.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that. Mutt is a great tool for what it does. But
> to condemn the vast majority of email users, those who don't follow
> the line length or bottom-posting conventions we've discussed, for
> failing to comply with 40 year old strictures advocated by an
> extremely small segment seems to me counter-productive.
> 
> -pd

I couldn't agree more. Well put Peter.

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Chris Bannister]

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 07:22:03PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:
> Apparently you're unaware of the last 30 or 40 years of human
> factors and usability research, or the fact that other people are
> using computers besides a bunch of ivory tower geeks who think users
> will follow whatever strictures and protocols they decide to impose.

Yeah, bring back Mr Paperclip!

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Chris Bannister]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 01:21:18PM -0600, Jim Graham wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:09:17AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Because there are no CR/LF in a paragraph then it is treated all as one
> > line.
> 
> Interesting, considering that Unix doesn't use CR/LF ... it uses a single
> newline instead.  So I suppose that means that the entire e-mail, from
> the "From " line to the end of the sig is all one paragraph, then?  :-)

I could say that the "/" quite often means "or". I'm aware that there
are differences between the various OS as to what is a valid line
terminator, as to what they are is not very relevant here. 

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Chris Bannister]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 02:37:57PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
> * On 21 Nov 2012, Chris Bannister wrote: 
> > Because there are no CR/LF in a paragraph then it is treated all as one
> > line. If the first "line" of a paragraph appears at the bottom of the
> > screen as yours did then mutt displays "All" on the far right of the
> > status line. This gives the impression that that is all there is to the
> > post, and hence the reason I thought you'd "accidently" sent it before
> > completing it.
> 
> I think I see what you're saying now.  It's not that mutt wouldn't
> display the whole message, but that when your window stops on the first
> terminal (logical) line of the last "physical" line of the message, mutt
> still indicates "All" instead of, e.g. "90%".  This prompts you not to
> finish reading.

Yes, correct.

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Peter Davis]

On 11/22/12 9:57 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 07:22:03PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:

   .snip.
  

Nope. Totally wrong. The responsibility is entire with the design
and the code, and never with the user. Otherwise it's a failed
product.

You're absolutely right...as soon as they make programmers capable of
predicting every mistake an end user will make...or the depth of every
end user's laziness and/or stupidity. Good luck!

Apparently you're unaware of the last 30 or 40 years of human
factors and usability research, or the fact that other people are
using computers besides a bunch of ivory tower geeks who think users
will follow whatever strictures and protocols they decide to impose.

Now they have mind reading software? Citation please.

This will be my last comment on the subject, since straying off topic 
is, I think, a worse transgression than top posting or using long lines. 
I apologize for prolonging this. I'll try to be as explicit as I can, to 
clarify my views on this.


The prevalent thinking in the software organizations I've been a part of 
is that products, including software, should be designed for the way 
users think and behave, instead of the other way around. There has been 
a surge of research on cognitive psychology, "engineering psychology", 
human factors and related fields. The goal is not mind-reading, but 
close. It is understanding how human cognition works, and how we can 
design tools that users will be able to control effectively. It 
addresses such questions as "How can we direct users' attention to the 
most important information in a busy display?" or "How can we limit the 
cognitive load a task places on the user, so as not to impair his/her 
performance?" It's not possible to predict every possible mistake, but 
it is possible to determine what conditions lead to mistakes.


Simply put, the approach is to treat the users' mental and physical 
capabilities as a set of design constraints that must be imposed on any 
product. This field has a long way to go, but has already accomplished 
much. Makers of cell phones, tablets, cars, aircraft, air traffic 
control systems, medical devices, etc. all pay very close attention to 
this field.


But the fact that you refer to "end user's laziness and/or stupidity" 
suggests that you have no acquaintance with this approach to design.


To bring this back to the topic, mutt is one of several MTAs I have 
used. I currently have three separate mail archives (not including 
backups) and use mutt, MH, Thunderbird, GMail and other WebMail 
interfaces, and occasional others. Each of the clients has certain 
advantages and certain drawbacks. I like the fact that I can quickly go 
through a large volume of mail with mutt, using just single keystrokes 
for the most part, and the fact that I can easily pipe messages to perl 
scripts I've written for various routine tasks.


However, I also recognize that mutt is, to a large extent, obsolete. Of 
course it still appeals to those who cling to the text/plain, 
72-characters-per-line limit model from the 1970's, but that audience is 
a smaller and smaller percentage of the email-using population. I don't 
have any data, but given the prevalence of email, I suspect that mutt 
users make up a minuscule portion of that.


Nothing wrong with that. Mutt is a great tool for what it does. But to 
condemn the vast majority of email users, those who don't follow the 
line length or bottom-posting conventions we've discussed, for failing 
to comply with 40 year old strictures advocated by an extremely small 
segment seems to me counter-productive.


-pd



--
Peter Davis
The Tech Curmudgeon
www.techcurmudgeon.com

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Robert Holtzman]

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 07:22:03PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:

  .snip.
 
> >>Nope. Totally wrong. The responsibility is entire with the design
> >>and the code, and never with the user. Otherwise it's a failed
> >>product.
> >You're absolutely right...as soon as they make programmers capable of
> >predicting every mistake an end user will make...or the depth of every
> >end user's laziness and/or stupidity. Good luck!
> Apparently you're unaware of the last 30 or 40 years of human
> factors and usability research, or the fact that other people are
> using computers besides a bunch of ivory tower geeks who think users
> will follow whatever strictures and protocols they decide to impose.

Now they have mind reading software? Citation please.

-- 
Bob Holtzman
If you think you're getting free lunch, 
check the price of the beer.
Key ID: 8D549279


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Peter Davis]

On 11/22/12 3:13 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:34:13PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:

On 11/20/12 3:18 PM, Rado Q wrote:

Software can't do magic, or make up for human failures. Sometimes
the responsibility is with the user, not the code.

Nope. Totally wrong. The responsibility is entire with the design
and the code, and never with the user. Otherwise it's a failed
product.

You're absolutely right...as soon as they make programmers capable of
predicting every mistake an end user will make...or the depth of every
end user's laziness and/or stupidity. Good luck!
Apparently you're unaware of the last 30 or 40 years of human factors 
and usability research, or the fact that other people are using 
computers besides a bunch of ivory tower geeks who think users will 
follow whatever strictures and protocols they decide to impose.


Good luck with that!

-pd

--
Peter Davis
The Tech Curmudgeon
www.techcurmudgeon.com

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Robert Holtzman]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:45:05PM +0100, Rado Q wrote:

.snip.`
> 
> Ok, we disagree on basic principles, because I require responsible
> and respectful users for any tool, no matter how well or badly
> it's coded.
> 
> People kill people, guns are just their tools for it.
> You'll never make a foolproof gun to avoid misuse.

+10!

-- 
Bob Holtzman
If you think you're getting free lunch, 
check the price of the beer.
Key ID: 8D549279


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Robert Holtzman]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:34:13PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:
> 
> On 11/20/12 3:18 PM, Rado Q wrote:
> >Software can't do magic, or make up for human failures. Sometimes
> >the responsibility is with the user, not the code.
> 
> Nope. Totally wrong. The responsibility is entire with the design
> and the code, and never with the user. Otherwise it's a failed
> product.

You're absolutely right...as soon as they make programmers capable of
predicting every mistake an end user will make...or the depth of every
end user's laziness and/or stupidity. Good luck!


-- 
Bob Holtzman
If you think you're getting free lunch, 
check the price of the beer.
Key ID: 8D549279


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Derek Martin]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:23:30PM +, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote:
> People sometimes just reply quickly and therefore forget to adhere
> to some of the netiquette guidelines, it doesn't mean they should be
> ignored. 

Yes, it does.  If your correspondence is impolite or thoughtless,
then giving you what you want (an answer) only encourages that
behavior.  The social contract (necessarily) works both ways.

-- 
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.



pgpK9DEpKmJSh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[David Champion]

* On 21 Nov 2012, Chris Bannister wrote: 
> Because there are no CR/LF in a paragraph then it is treated all as one
> line. If the first "line" of a paragraph appears at the bottom of the
> screen as yours did then mutt displays "All" on the far right of the
> status line. This gives the impression that that is all there is to the
> post, and hence the reason I thought you'd "accidently" sent it before
> completing it.

I think I see what you're saying now.  It's not that mutt wouldn't
display the whole message, but that when your window stops on the first
terminal (logical) line of the last "physical" line of the message, mutt
still indicates "All" instead of, e.g. "90%".  This prompts you not to
finish reading.

It may be appropriate to do something about this in mutt.  Regardless,
whatever the other pros or cons of wrapping at N columns, this should
not be counted among reasons to wrap.  It should either be user (reader)
error or software error, because it's entirely a consequence of how the
reader's software works or fails to work well.

-- 
David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Jim Graham]

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:09:17AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:

> 
> Because there are no CR/LF in a paragraph then it is treated all as one
> line.

Interesting, considering that Unix doesn't use CR/LF ... it uses a single
newline instead.  So I suppose that means that the entire e-mail, from
the "From " line to the end of the sig is all one paragraph, then?  :-)

Later,
   --jim

-- 
THE SCORE:  ME:  2  CANCER:  0
73 DE N5IAL (/4)MiSTie #49997  < Running Mac OS X Lion >
spooky1...@gmail.comICBM/Hurr.: 30.44406N 86.59909W

   My policy on spammers:
  "Castrate first, ask questions later."

Android Apps Listing at http://www.jstrack.org/barcodes.html

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Mark H. Wood]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:23:30PM +, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote:
> / Mark H. Wood wrote on Wed 21.Nov'12 at  9:56:23 -0500 /
> 
> > Well, when it doesn't work to lecture people who are trying to
> > communicate, try ignoring them.  On public MLs, whenever my "this guy
> > doesn't know how to communicate effectively" recognizer goes off, I
> > typically hit 'd' and move on.
[snip]
> 
> Your preference, of course, but this just seems unnecessarily intollerant 
> if you ask me. Netiquette is merely a guideline, not a law. People
> sometimes just reply quickly and therefore forget to adhere to some of
> the netiquette guidelines, it doesn't mean they should be ignored. Why
> would you want to adopt such an approach? It's unfriendly and
> unwelcoming and is one of the reasons people sometimes feel
> uncomfortable posting to mailing lists in fear of being publicly
> scorned. Surely that goes against the whole purpose of mailing lists and
> usenet which is to help people and share information.

Well, dashing something off without caring whether it is readable is
unfriendly and unwelcoming too.  If a thought is not worth the effort
of writing it well, I have found that generally it is not worth the
recipient's effort to read it.

I can't help someone if I'm so tired and confused from the effort to
winkle out the poster's meaning that I have no brainpower left to help
with.  Why waste that time?

-- 
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer   mw...@iupui.edu
I don't do "doorbusters".


pgptqEMVwbxxE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Mark H. Wood]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:27:45PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:59:55AM -0600, David Young wrote:
> > Every now and then some jerk sends me an email reply where their
> > contribution is red.  Maybe that is worth fighting about on grounds
> > that that's a poor choice of color for readability, but not on grounds
> > that my console is monochrome.
> 
>  If someone sends me html mail (to a different account), I trash
> mail in silly colours.  On a technical list, I expect plain text and
> conformity with accepted norms.

Eh, I pipe it through lynx, which removes most of the frills and makes
it almost readable again.

  mwood@mhw ~/.mutt $ grep html ~/.mutt/muttrc
  auto_view   text/html
  alternative_order   text/plain text/html application/postscript text
  mwood@mhw ~ $ grep html /etc/mailcap 
  text/html; /usr/bin/lynx -dump -force_html '%s'; \
   copiousoutput; \
   description=HTML Text; \
   nametemplate=%s.html
  mwood@mhw ~ $

(Hand-rewrapped to fit my 80-column xterm.)

You should see the double-takes at a store when I present one of those
"your order has arrived, bring a copy of this" messages (usually
dripping with unnecessary decoration and clutter) which I've printed
out of mutt. :-)

-- 
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer   mw...@iupui.edu
I don't do "doorbusters".


pgp8oUCSFbRAa.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Jamie Paul Griffin]

/ Mark H. Wood wrote on Wed 21.Nov'12 at  9:56:23 -0500 /

> Well, when it doesn't work to lecture people who are trying to
> communicate, try ignoring them.  On public MLs, whenever my "this guy
> doesn't know how to communicate effectively" recognizer goes off, I
> typically hit 'd' and move on.
> 
> If the sender never notices, you probably haven't missed anything.  If
> he complains, *then* you get a chance to educate him:
> 
>   A:  Why don't you answer my emails?
>   B:  Because you write like a drunken monkey?  Reading your messages
>   is bootless and exhausting.
>   A:  Huh?  What's wrong with my writing?
> 
>   [You have reached the Teachable Moment.  Shift to a helpful,
>   empowering tone and explain how he can get more from the time he
>   spends on his missives by employing a few powerful conventions.
>   Notice how I didn't say "improve your writing" or "follow rules"?
>   There's something that he wants, and you're showing him how to
>   reach out and take it.  You're offering him power and influence,
>   *for free*.]
> 
> Vary the initial answer in accordance with the audience -- you
> probably wouldn't talk to your boss *quite* that way, but you can find
> a way that works.  Whatever the tactics, the goal is to get him to
> wonder "what's wrong with my writing?"  Then you can tell him what
> could become right about it, which is a lot more interesting.

Your preference, of course, but this just seems unnecessarily intollerant 
if you ask me. Netiquette is merely a guideline, not a law. People
sometimes just reply quickly and therefore forget to adhere to some of
the netiquette guidelines, it doesn't mean they should be ignored. Why
would you want to adopt such an approach? It's unfriendly and
unwelcoming and is one of the reasons people sometimes feel
uncomfortable posting to mailing lists in fear of being publicly
scorned. Surely that goes against the whole purpose of mailing lists and
usenet which is to help people and share information.

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Mark H. Wood]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:54:42PM -0600, David Young wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:27:19PM +0100, Holger Weiß wrote:
> > * David Young  [2012-11-20 11:59]:
> > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 04:42:13PM +, John Long wrote:
> > > > Take some responsibility for yourself and your content. Post like a man 
> > > > not
> > > > a webbot.
> > > 
> > > I cannot believe people are still hewing to this old line.  It's like
> > > thousands of people fell asleep at their teletypes (I mean the kind that
> > > printed on paper) in the 1970s and woke up in 2012.
> > 
> > The point is not supporting teletypes (though I do print emails to paper
> > quite regularly in 2012), but readability.  Extending the line length to
> > more than 70 or 80 characters significantly reduces readability.
> 
> Of course the point is not supporting teletypes.  But if the point
> is readability, why uphold the readability conventions from another
> time, medium, and technology like nothing has changed in email content,
> volume, or the variety and capabilities of clients?

Because the human eye, and the way it is mounted and controlled,
together with the human visual cortex and the way it processes
stimuli, have not changed at all in that interval, and that is the
technology which these conventions address.

-- 
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer   mw...@iupui.edu
I don't do "doorbusters".


pgp3tj1jg4yhr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Mark H. Wood]

Well, when it doesn't work to lecture people who are trying to
communicate, try ignoring them.  On public MLs, whenever my "this guy
doesn't know how to communicate effectively" recognizer goes off, I
typically hit 'd' and move on.

If the sender never notices, you probably haven't missed anything.  If
he complains, *then* you get a chance to educate him:

  A:  Why don't you answer my emails?
  B:  Because you write like a drunken monkey?  Reading your messages
  is bootless and exhausting.
  A:  Huh?  What's wrong with my writing?

  [You have reached the Teachable Moment.  Shift to a helpful,
  empowering tone and explain how he can get more from the time he
  spends on his missives by employing a few powerful conventions.
  Notice how I didn't say "improve your writing" or "follow rules"?
  There's something that he wants, and you're showing him how to
  reach out and take it.  You're offering him power and influence,
  *for free*.]

Vary the initial answer in accordance with the audience -- you
probably wouldn't talk to your boss *quite* that way, but you can find
a way that works.  Whatever the tactics, the goal is to get him to
wonder "what's wrong with my writing?"  Then you can tell him what
could become right about it, which is a lot more interesting.

-- 
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer   mw...@iupui.edu
I don't do "doorbusters".


pgpQeCXJ6TTlS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Patrick Shanahan]

* Chris Bannister  [11-21-12 06:32]:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:39:02PM +, Tony's unattended mail wrote:
> > compose with no linefeeds, except when a linebreak is really needed (a
> > peom, for example).  The the rendering software can wrap where it
> > makes the most sense to, and honor the existing linefeeds that are
> > important.  The rendering tool cannot know a important (peom) linefeed
> > apart from the linefeeds of a composer who tried to guess what the
> > reader would prefer.
> 
> Excuse my ignorance, but what is a peom?

You need to replace/adjust the software you utilize to display email as it
fails to deal with everyday email by not correcting misspelllings. 
Remember, it is the responsibility of the reader to properly interpret
rather than the writer to make his discourse comprehended.

Responsibility is a cruel taskmaster.

-- 
(paka)Patrick Shanahan   Plainfield, Indiana, USA  HOG # US1244711
http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
http://en.opensuse.org   openSUSE Community Member
Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Chris Bannister]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:39:02PM +, Tony's unattended mail wrote:
> compose with no linefeeds, except when a linebreak is really needed (a
> peom, for example).  The the rendering software can wrap where it
> makes the most sense to, and honor the existing linefeeds that are
> important.  The rendering tool cannot know a important (peom) linefeed
> apart from the linefeeds of a composer who tried to guess what the
> reader would prefer.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a peom?

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Chris Bannister]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:19:25PM +, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote:
[…]
> My confusion is simply due to the fact that when my emails come
> through from mutt's mailing list manager to my server and I read them
> with mutt, I don't experience the readability issues others seem to.
> It's not something that has been pointed out to me on other lists or
> other people I communicate with by email either. 

Because there are no CR/LF in a paragraph then it is treated all as one
line. If the first "line" of a paragraph appears at the bottom of the
screen as yours did then mutt displays "All" on the far right of the
status line. This gives the impression that that is all there is to the
post, and hence the reason I thought you'd "accidently" sent it before
completing it.

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Chris Bannister]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:34:13PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:
> 
> On 11/20/12 3:18 PM, Rado Q wrote:
> >Software can't do magic, or make up for human failures. Sometimes
> >the responsibility is with the user, not the code.
> 
> Nope. Totally wrong. The responsibility is entire with the design
 ^^
file a bug with your editor, it didn't fix your mistake.
 

> and the code, and never with the user. Otherwise it's a failed
> product.

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Chris Bannister]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:59:55AM -0600, David Young wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 04:42:13PM +, John Long wrote: 
[…]
> > Mail and news need to have sane line lengths. 72 or 76 chars are common. It
> > makes people look like AOL groupies when they post 500 character lines. Many
> > of us use console news clients and newsreaders. Is this discussion really
> > happening on a mailing list for mutt, a console email client?
> > 
> > Take some responsibility for yourself and your content. Post like a man not
> > a webbot.
> 
> I cannot believe people are still hewing to this old line.  It's like
> thousands of people fell asleep at their teletypes (I mean the kind that
> printed on paper) in the 1970s and woke up in 2012.  "What, you have
> computers in your pockets but there is no conformance to the width in
> columns of 40 year-old data terminals any more?"
> 
> Tony is right, it's not reasonable with the variety of display widths,
> today, to hold people to One, True Email Width.  It's also not
> reasonable to demand that people rigidly conform with strict technical
> standards when software can (and should) do it for them.  In other
> words, don't treat people like robots.
> 
> The variety and richness of email is large and growing, but the power
> and variety of software for reading and writing email is pretty small.
> Every now and then some jerk sends me an email reply where their
> contribution is red.  Maybe that is worth fighting about on grounds
> that that's a poor choice of color for readability, but not on grounds
> that my console is monochrome.  I receive a lot of top-posted replies,
> bottom-posted replies, and inline replies.  In conversations, sometimes
> there are mixtures of all three of those styles and then some---try to
> read those conversations three months later!  Software could digest
> a lot of this email that doesn't conform to my taste, priorities,
> available time, attention, perceptual strengths and weaknesses, and
> spit out something that's not only more palatable but more useful, but
> software doesn't do that.

On a ML, people tend to post regarding a problem they are having. If a
person who could possibly help them has to jump through hoops just to
read what they have written, it is likely they'd just press the delete key,
rather than waste their own time. It's as simple as that.

Another way to look at it is: "If someone can't take the time to write
their post in a clear and legible manner, why should anyone waste their
time replying to it."

Don't confuse pink whizz bang pop sha-ping pzzang flashing things which
"kids" use to "keep in touch" with email netiquette on mailing lists.

> One reason email software is not more useful is that because too many
> smart people wage a losing war on the new, foreign ways of email instead
> of programming filters that transform top-posted, red, 5000-column
> emails to the style of email that they want to read.  That's just sad.

On a mailing list?  Wouldn't bother reading it, straight in the rubbish.
(American translation: trash, dumpster.)

P.S. It is sad that this topic is actually having to be discussed on
**THIS** mailing list. Another tear in the fabric of decency. :(

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Nicolai]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:37:36PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:
> Your preferences don't apply everywhere. In most of the (many) places
> I've worked, top-posting is the normal, and preferred practice. That
> way, you can quickly see what someone has added to the conversation
> without wading through quoted material.

Chinese is cool because you can read it left to right or right to left,
top to bottom, even bottom to top.  English lacks this flexibility.  What
comes first must be above.

If not, don't quote at all.

Nicolai

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Jim Graham]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:51:40PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:

> Top posting almost invariably requires me to re-read WAY more of the
> previous thread than I would have had to if the user posted in line
> and trimmed quoted text appropriately.  And on top of that, you have
> to read, in chunks, BACKWARD.  You call that efficient?  

Why bother?  I hit (r)eply (or (L)ist reply when applicable), and delete
everything below the sender's signature.  If the sender's text is
something like, "Do you agree?"  My response would then be, "With what?"

And, of course, my response is inline, not top-posted.  The only time
I DO top-post is if I'm forwarding a message (usually NHC advisories to
local friends who don't subscribe to WX-ATLAN or the NHC's list) if
there's a potential threat in the near future.  I'll type something like,

"See forwarded advisory below.  Don't take your eyes off of this until
we're clear."

> > Similarly, quoting the entire thread is preferred, so you can refer
> > back to earlier parts of the discussion without having to dig up older
> > messages. 

I've seen examples of people doing much worse  I used to be on the
digest version of the Android Developers list.  I saw numerous posts by
others who quoted the ENTIRE DIGEST and either top or bottom posted.
And they inevitably used the digest's subject (something like,
"Android developers list digest for 20-Novebmer-2012."  I also see
posts with this subject (well, the real digest subject. not my
close-enough approximation) in the list.  I delete them long before
I find out whether they were among those posting the whole list (in
other words, see that as the subject line, delete first, and don't
bother to think about it later).

Later,
   --jim

-- 
THE SCORE:  ME:  2  CANCER:  0
73 DE N5IAL (/4)MiSTie #49997  < Running Mac OS X Lion >
spooky1...@gmail.com ICBM/Hurricane: 30.44406N 86.59909W

  "'Wrong' is one of those concepts that depends on witnesses."
 --Catbert:  Evil Director of Human Resources (Dilbert, 05Nov09)

Android Apps Listing at http://www.jstrack.org/barcodes.html

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Derek Martin]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:34:13PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:
> 
> On 11/20/12 3:18 PM, Rado Q wrote:
> >Software can't do magic, or make up for human failures. Sometimes
> >the responsibility is with the user, not the code.
> 
> Nope. Totally wrong. The responsibility is entire with the design
> and the code, and never with the user. 

Nope, totally wrong.  The computer works for the user... if you insist
on being a jackass, it should afford you that freedom.

-- 
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.



pgpNRsIcGy4gQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Derek Martin]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:37:36PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:10:37PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > 
> > Ignorant, disrespectful and inconsiderate is the top poster who quotes
> > 5000 lines including sigs and trailers and irrelevant/unenforcable
> > disclaimers *and* the bottom poster who does the same and adds a single
> > line (or more) of comment which probably ends up being a "me 2" or not
> > even pertaining to the subject.
> 
> Your preferences don't apply everywhere. In most of the (many) places
> I've worked, top-posting is the normal, and preferred practice. 

This is, IMNSHO, an evolution of the fact that  most people in
business use MS Outlook, which is complete and utter crap, combined
with the fact that most people are lazy and inconsiderate (I would
actually say "oblivious" which is almost, but not quite as bad).  They
never learned the right way to deal with mail, in large part because
they use Outlook, and various versions of Outlook either did not
handle threads, or have it turned off by default; but also in part
because they are lazy and inconsiderate, and as a result value their
own time far ahead of that of their many recipients.  

There are two cases that matter with regard to this issue:

 - The intended recipients were on the thread from the start.

In this case, your communication is VASTLY most effective, BY FAR more
efficient for recipients, and sometimes also more efficient EVEN FOR
THE AUTHOR, to reply in line, trimming the bits of the thread that are
not relevant to your reply.  Your recipients may be many, so any
inefficiencies here are multiplied by that number.  In contrast, the
work you need to do to trim your e-mail affects only you.

The reason it can be more efficient for the author is that often, in
order to get your point across without being ambiguous, you end up
writing more to explain what you meant, when if you had responded in
line, possibly a one-word answer would have sufficed.

 - New recipients have been added who were not on the original thread

This is the most common excuse that most people who favor top posting
give:  If people weren't on the thread, they can't get the full
context without having the whole thread.  And the concern is valid,
but the fact is that it's very rarely useful for a recipient to read
the whole thread that came before.  Not only that, but it's very
inconsiderate to expect a new recipient to have to wade through, IN
REVERSE ORDER, every single post that came before in a thread.  

The right thing to do is for the author to breifly summarize the key
points of the thread, and then add their own comments to the most
recent reply in-line.  The reason doing this is unpopular is because
it means the author will have to spend a few extra minutes drafting
their reply.  Poor you.

Top posting is inefficient, generally ill-concieved, and just plain rude.

> That way, you can quickly see what someone has added to the
> conversation without wading through quoted material. 

If only that were actually true. My absolute favorite is when someone
replies to a 5-paragraph e-mail that, say, offers 3 different
perspectives on a topic, and top-posts, "Yeah, I agree."  Really?
Which of the 3 major perspectives, or numerous individual points do
you agree with?  It's totally useless, completely ineffective
communication... but very common.

Top posting almost invariably requires me to re-read WAY more of the
previous thread than I would have had to if the user posted in line
and trimmed quoted text appropriately.  And on top of that, you have
to read, in chunks, BACKWARD.  You call that efficient?  

> Similarly, quoting the entire thread is preferred, so you can refer
> back to earlier parts of the discussion without having to dig up older
> messages. 

That's only possibly true if you use a crap client that doesn't
thread, and you clean up your e-mail too often, AND you have the
attention span of a gnat.  Cuz otherwise, there's no digging up old
e-mails... you have them right there.  You need only glance at them to
recover enough context to figure out which is the right one to look
at, and find the salient details.  Or, if you absolutely have to, you
*can* re-read the whole thread.  That's not any different than
re-reading the text included on a fully-quoted top-posted e-mail
thread, EXCEPT that a) the conversation isn't backwards, and b) those
that don't have the attention span of a gnat don't need to wade
through everything to get at what you're replying to.  If you quote
only the relevant bits, it will be immediately obvious, and they'll
likely remember enough of the preceeding conversation that they don't
need to review it.

> Certainly sigs serve no purpose here, but it's too much work
> to find and excise them all.

Nonsense.  First off, every e-mail client should remove them
automatically when you reply.  Doing that is simple (even Mutt does
not currently do it AFAIK, but it can be done easily in a variety of
way

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Ken Moffat]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:59:55AM -0600, David Young wrote:
> Every now and then some jerk sends me an email reply where their
> contribution is red.  Maybe that is worth fighting about on grounds
> that that's a poor choice of color for readability, but not on grounds
> that my console is monochrome.

 If someone sends me html mail (to a different account), I trash
mail in silly colours.  On a technical list, I expect plain text and
conformity with accepted norms.

ĸen
-- 
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Jeremy Kitchen]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:19:25PM +, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote:
> My first response to Chris when he raised the issue stated that I would 
> happily adjust the setting for vi, on invocation from mutt, to address the 
> issue. Chris kindly responded with a muttrc tip. I have no problem at all 
> with line wrapping my emails for the users of this list if it is causing them 
> readability issues. I like this list very much, using it and contributing to 
> it, so the last thing i want is to upset or irritate fellow users over such a 
> matter. 
> 
> My confusion is simply due to the fact that when my emails come
> through from mutt's mailing list manager to my server and I read them
> with mutt, I don't experience the readability issues others seem to.
> It's not something that has been pointed out to me on other lists or
> other people I communicate with by email either. 

this is how it looks in my mutt when your emails come in:
http://img.kitchen.io/mutt-line-wrapping.png

and this is what it looks like when I go to reply (I use vim)

http://img.kitchen.io/mutt-line-wrap-reply.png

now, since I'm super anal about my own line wrapping, I reformat your
paragraph with vim's 'gq' function (as I have done)

I do prefer when people use sane text-width for their emails, but it
doesn't make anything *unreadable* for me. I just move on. If it was
actually unreadable, I would do one of 2 things:

1. reformat it myself so I can read it.
2. not read it.

There are certain things which annoy me, like top posting rather than
inline, and bottom posting without trimming (which is actually worse
than top posting, imo, because it makes me have to scroll clear to the
bottom of the message) which I do harp on people about on mailing lists,
but things like line length are a minor annoyance and only so because
I'm anal.

"Be strict in what you send, but tolerant in what you receive."

Really my main gripes about the current state of internet mail is the
abandonment of threads. "Conversation view" is not a thread. I don't use
most forum software for the same reason, because if I'm on page 27 of
a forum "thread" and someone adds a post which is replying to something
on page 4, there's no way to cross-reference it, and it drives me
insane.

"group by subject" makes me want to kill. It has its uses, but for
human-generated threads with proper mail clients, it is unnecessary.

Anywho, 

Oh, then there are those people who pgp sign their emails. There's
a special place in hell reserved for them ;-)

-Jeremy

-- 
.O.Jeremy Kitchen (o_
..O   kitc...@kitchen.io  //\
OOO  twitter.com/kitchen  V_/_


pgpwMXCByrxhZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Rado Q]

=- Jamie Paul Griffin wrote on Tue 20.Nov'12 at 22:19:25 + -=

> My confusion is simply due to the fact that when my emails come
> through from mutt's mailing list manager to my server and I read
> them with mutt, I don't experience the readability issues others
> seem to. It's not something that has been pointed out to me on
> other lists or other people I communicate with by email either.

Even though mutt supports some builtin wrapping and with external
filters anybody could do anything... some still don't wrap
everything ... maybe because it disturbs something else then...

Long-liners are still rare in mutt-world because of where mutt comes
from, so as exceptions they stand out, even if it may be common
everywhere else.

No real harm done anyway, just clarifying habits.

-- 
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Jamie Paul Griffin]

/ Rado Q wrote on Tue 20.Nov'12 at 22:27:43 +0100 /

> =- Jamie Paul Griffin wrote on Tue 20.Nov'12 at 20:57:53 + -=
> 
> > > Ok, we disagree on basic principles, because I require
> > > responsible and respectful users for any tool, no matter how
> > > well or badly it's coded.
> > 
> > I think to label someone as disrespectful and irresponsible simply
> > because they don't set a line wrap in an email is ridiculous and
> > certainly OTT. Surely you have more serious matters to worry about
> > than that.
> > 
> > > People kill people, guns are just their tools for it.
> > > You'll never make a foolproof gun to avoid misuse.
> > 
> > Again, an analogy which is very over dramatic. No disrespect
> > intented mind you :-)
> 
> I'm not comparing scale but principle.
> It's not on par with mass-murder, but it's basically wrong at the
> origin, not the receiver.
> 
> If you agree that it's a minor thing, you could simply produce
> easy-on-the-eyes wrapped text and nobody would ever raise it again. :)

My first response to Chris when he raised the issue stated that I would happily 
adjust the setting for vi, on invocation from mutt, to address the issue. Chris 
kindly responded with a muttrc tip. I have no problem at all with line wrapping 
my emails for the users of this list if it is causing them readability issues. 
I like this list very much, using it and contributing to it, so the last thing 
i want is to upset or irritate fellow users over such a matter. 

My confusion is simply due to the fact that when my emails come through from 
mutt's mailing list manager to my server and I read them with mutt, I don't 
experience the readability issues others seem to. It's not something that has 
been pointed out to me on other lists or other people I communicate with by 
email either. 

Best wishes, Jamie.

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Rado Q]

=- Jamie Paul Griffin wrote on Tue 20.Nov'12 at 20:57:53 + -=

> > Ok, we disagree on basic principles, because I require
> > responsible and respectful users for any tool, no matter how
> > well or badly it's coded.
> 
> I think to label someone as disrespectful and irresponsible simply
> because they don't set a line wrap in an email is ridiculous and
> certainly OTT. Surely you have more serious matters to worry about
> than that.
> 
> > People kill people, guns are just their tools for it.
> > You'll never make a foolproof gun to avoid misuse.
> 
> Again, an analogy which is very over dramatic. No disrespect
> intented mind you :-)

I'm not comparing scale but principle.
It's not on par with mass-murder, but it's basically wrong at the
origin, not the receiver.

If you agree that it's a minor thing, you could simply produce
easy-on-the-eyes wrapped text and nobody would ever raise it again. :)

Those using other media can adjust the output to their specific
needs. If there is no software invented for that, it's time. :)

-- 
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Christoph Möbius]

Hello dear discussants,

are you even aware?


Fact:
There are two types of people: people who wrap lines when they edit and people
who don't.

Since you all apparently are using mutt you can deal with both types.

So what is this all about?

Could please be so kind and stop spamming about this philosophical stuff?


Best regards,
CM


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Holger Weiß]

* David Young  [2012-11-20 14:54]:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:27:19PM +0100, Holger Weiß wrote:
> > * David Young  [2012-11-20 11:59]:
> > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 04:42:13PM +, John Long wrote:
> > > > Take some responsibility for yourself and your content. Post like a man 
> > > > not
> > > > a webbot.
> > > 
> > > I cannot believe people are still hewing to this old line.  It's like
> > > thousands of people fell asleep at their teletypes (I mean the kind that
> > > printed on paper) in the 1970s and woke up in 2012.
> > 
> > The point is not supporting teletypes (though I do print emails to paper
> > quite regularly in 2012), but readability.  Extending the line length to
> > more than 70 or 80 characters significantly reduces readability.
> 
> Of course the point is not supporting teletypes.  But if the point
> is readability, why uphold the readability conventions from another
> time, medium, and technology like nothing has changed in email content,
> volume, or the variety and capabilities of clients?

Because the impact of line length on readability doesn't depend on the
email content, volume, or client capabilities.  300-character lines are
horrible to read on any medium.

Holger

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Jamie Paul Griffin]

/ Rado Q wrote on Tue 20.Nov'12 at 21:45:05 +0100 /

> =- Peter Davis wrote on Tue 20.Nov'12 at 15:34:13 -0500 -=
> 
> > >Software can't do magic, or make up for human failures. Sometimes
> > >the responsibility is with the user, not the code.
> > 
> > Nope. Totally wrong. The responsibility is entire with the design and the
> > code, and never with the user. Otherwise it's a failed product.
> 
> Heh, for me it's a failed user. :)
> 
> Ok, we disagree on basic principles, because I require responsible
> and respectful users for any tool, no matter how well or badly
> it's coded.
 
I think to label someone as disrespectful and irresponsible simply because they 
don't set a line wrap in an email is ridiculous and certainly OTT. Surely you 
have more serious matters to worry about than that. 

> People kill people, guns are just their tools for it.
> You'll never make a foolproof gun to avoid misuse.

Again, an analogy which is very over dramatic. No disrespect intented mind you 
:-)

Jamie.

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[David Young]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:27:19PM +0100, Holger Weiß wrote:
> * David Young  [2012-11-20 11:59]:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 04:42:13PM +, John Long wrote:
> > > Take some responsibility for yourself and your content. Post like a man 
> > > not
> > > a webbot.
> > 
> > I cannot believe people are still hewing to this old line.  It's like
> > thousands of people fell asleep at their teletypes (I mean the kind that
> > printed on paper) in the 1970s and woke up in 2012.
> 
> The point is not supporting teletypes (though I do print emails to paper
> quite regularly in 2012), but readability.  Extending the line length to
> more than 70 or 80 characters significantly reduces readability.

Of course the point is not supporting teletypes.  But if the point
is readability, why uphold the readability conventions from another
time, medium, and technology like nothing has changed in email content,
volume, or the variety and capabilities of clients?

Dave

-- 
David Young
dyo...@pobox.comUrbana, IL(217) 721-9981

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Rado Q]

=- Peter Davis wrote on Tue 20.Nov'12 at 15:34:13 -0500 -=

> >Software can't do magic, or make up for human failures. Sometimes
> >the responsibility is with the user, not the code.
> 
> Nope. Totally wrong. The responsibility is entire with the design and the
> code, and never with the user. Otherwise it's a failed product.

Heh, for me it's a failed user. :)

Ok, we disagree on basic principles, because I require responsible
and respectful users for any tool, no matter how well or badly
it's coded.

People kill people, guns are just their tools for it.
You'll never make a foolproof gun to avoid misuse.

-- 
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Tony's unattended mail]

On 2012-11-20, Rado Q  wrote:
>=- David Young wrote on Tue 20.Nov'12 at 11:59:55 -0600 -=
>
>> "What, you have computers in your pockets but there is no
>> conformance to the width in columns of 40 year-old data terminals
>> any more?"
>
> That's not a technical issue but readability: it's easier on the
> eyes/ flow of reading when you don't have to jump big distances when
> CR-LF.

It's both.  There is a reability issue, and a technical solution.

72 characters is easy on the eyes if you have an 80+ character wide
display, but try that on a smartphone.  It's senseless to impose a
convention that assumes that the consumer of the information will have
particular limitations.

> Right, then have software _produce_ humanly useful results in the
> 1st place rather than trying to catchup something already gone
> wrong.  I'm tired of "fix/workaround what others are failing to
> comply".

The software that composes a post knows *less* about the software that
will render it than the software that will render it.  Some will read
on their phone, some on a laptop, e-reader, and one day many will be
reading the text on their walls.  There's no sense in an author trying
to guess who will read it and on what medium.

>> Software could digest a lot of this email that doesn't conform to
>> my taste, priorities, available time, attention, perceptual
>> strengths and weaknesses, and spit out something that's not only
>> more palatable but more useful, but software doesn't do that.
>
> Software can't do magic, or make up for human failures.

But this is precisely what you're calling for when imposing a 72
character limit.  The software for composition cannot possibly know
who will read it on what other software.  So the best you can do is
compose with no linefeeds, except when a linebreak is really needed (a
peom, for example).  The the rendering software can wrap where it
makes the most sense to, and honor the existing linefeeds that are
important.  The rendering tool cannot know a important (peom) linefeed
apart from the linefeeds of a composer who tried to guess what the
reader would prefer.

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Suvayu Ali]

Hi,

I would like to share a different perspective on this issue.

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:18:36PM +0100, Rado Q wrote:
> =- David Young wrote on Tue 20.Nov'12 at 11:59:55 -0600 -=
> 
> > "What, you have computers in your pockets but there is no
> > conformance to the width in columns of 40 year-old data terminals
> > any more?"
> 
> That's not a technical issue but readability: it's easier on the eyes/
> flow of reading when you don't have to jump big distances when CR-LF.

In the typographic world there are some "prefered" character lengths in
a line of text when typeset in "reasonably sized" fonts.  There is a
very nice discussion in the following TeX.SX answer:

  

Maybe some of the reasons above justify wrapping responses at some
column?  Of course I have no clue how relevant the above is for text on
computer screens.  Food for some thought.

:)

-- 
Suvayu

Open source is the future. It sets us free.

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Peter Davis]

On 11/20/12 3:18 PM, Rado Q wrote:
Software can't do magic, or make up for human failures. Sometimes the 
responsibility is with the user, not the code. 


Nope. Totally wrong. The responsibility is entire with the design and 
the code, and never with the user. Otherwise it's a failed product.


-pd


--
Peter Davis
The Tech Curmudgeon
www.techcurmudgeon.com

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Holger Weiß]

* David Young  [2012-11-20 11:59]:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 04:42:13PM +, John Long wrote:
> > Mail and news need to have sane line lengths. 72 or 76 chars are common. It
> > makes people look like AOL groupies when they post 500 character lines. Many
> > of us use console news clients and newsreaders. Is this discussion really
> > happening on a mailing list for mutt, a console email client?
> > 
> > Take some responsibility for yourself and your content. Post like a man not
> > a webbot.
> 
> I cannot believe people are still hewing to this old line.  It's like
> thousands of people fell asleep at their teletypes (I mean the kind that
> printed on paper) in the 1970s and woke up in 2012.

The point is not supporting teletypes (though I do print emails to paper
quite regularly in 2012), but readability.  Extending the line length to
more than 70 or 80 characters significantly reduces readability.

Holger

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Rado Q]

=- Peter Davis wrote on Tue 20.Nov'12 at 13:37:36 -0500 -=

> Most workplaces are using email to communicate, and they want
> maximum efficiency in that. Users want a way to get a message
> across quickly, as opposed to trying to create a beautiful and
> literate archive.

Because in business it's common to save own money & time
with producing results by putting the load on the receivers.
Even in business I don't need the overhead with _every&each_ single
eMail, you can add the extra info _on demand_.

-- 
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Rado Q]

=- David Young wrote on Tue 20.Nov'12 at 11:59:55 -0600 -=

> "What, you have computers in your pockets but there is no
> conformance to the width in columns of 40 year-old data terminals
> any more?"

That's not a technical issue but readability: it's easier on the eyes/
flow of reading when you don't have to jump big distances when CR-LF.

> It's also not reasonable to demand that people rigidly conform
> with strict technical standards when software can (and should) do
> it for them. In other words, don't treat people like robots.

Right, then have software _produce_ humanly useful results in the 1st
place rather than trying to catchup something already gone wrong.
I'm tired of "fix/workaround what others are failing to comply".

> Software could digest a lot of this email that doesn't conform to
> my taste, priorities, available time, attention, perceptual
> strengths and weaknesses, and spit out something that's not only
> more palatable but more useful, but software doesn't do that.

Software can't do magic, or make up for human failures.
Sometimes the responsibility is with the user, not the code.

-- 
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Peter Davis]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:10:37PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> 
> Ignorant, disrespectful and inconsiderate is the top poster who quotes
> 5000 lines including sigs and trailers and irrelevant/unenforcable
> disclaimers *and* the bottom poster who does the same and adds a single
> line (or more) of comment which probably ends up being a "me 2" or not
> even pertaining to the subject.

Your preferences don't apply everywhere. In most of the (many) places
I've worked, top-posting is the normal, and preferred practice. That
way, you can quickly see what someone has added to the conversation
without wading through quoted material. Some mail readers (GMail,
among others) actually show a short preview in the list of messages,
so top-posting is useful in that context as well.

Similarly, quoting the entire thread is preferred, so you can refer
back to earlier parts of the discussion without having to dig up older
messages. Certainly sigs serve no purpose here, but it's too much work
to find and excise them all.

Most workplaces are using email to communicate, and they want maximum
efficiency in that. Users want a way to get a message across quickly,
as opposed to trying to create a beautiful and literate archive.

-pd

Re: email has changed, you won't change everyone, and you don't have to

[Patrick Shanahan]

* David Young  [11-20-12 13:02]:
 ...
> One reason email software is not more useful is that because too many
> smart people wage a losing war on the new, foreign ways of email instead
> of programming filters that transform top-posted, red, 5000-column
> emails to the style of email that they want to read.  That's just sad.

Email clients are useful for their intended purpose.  What is sad is that
so many disreguard [sudo]standards, ie: m$.

Ignorant, disrespectful and inconsiderate is the top poster who quotes
5000 lines including sigs and trailers and irrelevant/unenforcable
disclaimers *and* the bottom poster who does the same and adds a single
line (or more) of comment which probably ends up being a "me 2" or not
even pertaining to the subject.

[N]etiquette is dying just as etiquette and personal consideration is also
dying.

-- 
(paka)Patrick Shanahan   Plainfield, Indiana, USA  HOG # US1244711
http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
http://en.opensuse.org   openSUSE Community Member
Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net