Re: location of signature.
* Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-05 17:00:19 -0500]: >This will be my last post about this topic. I am not gonna waste more >time on this trivial issue, even if it is important to many of you. Well, I've read quite a bit further down this thread before responding to this message, and I must say that regardless of any other netiquette breaches you may be guilty of, you did manage to not post again after saying you wouldn't; that's a skill a lot of us would do well to learn, I think. :p However... >I do not know exactly how many people reply before quoted message but >over 90% of my daily emails are in this style and I can see this kind of >emails all over the Internet. Maybe they are all bad-mannered people, >maybe they are all corrupted by M$, I feel quite comfortable with this >style and will continue to use it. Well, obviously neither I nor anyone else can stop you, but I wish you wouldn't. It's just simply not the best way to do things. In addition to the various politeness-based reasons already cited by others, the one thing that really brings it home for me (as someone who values solutions that have empirical merit) is that top-quoting simply doesn't scale. What I mean is, if you are responding to a message that contains two separate points, to which you want to reply separately, putting your reply in one block (either at the top _or_ bottom) has certain objective, quantifiable disadvantages. Therefore, assuming you accept these two statements: 1) A reply to two separate parts of the same message is clearer when the two reply blocks appear immediately below the parts of the message to which they pertain. 2) Consistency of style is important for effective communication. (Hint: the very existence of written language is a demonstration of this point) ...then it follows that top-replying is not the best way. As an additional point, I submit the following excerpt from a post from [EMAIL PROTECTED], to the newsgroup microsoft.public.win2000: #When including text from a previous message in the thread, trim it #down to include only text pertinent to your response. Your response #should appear below the quoted information. In follow-ups, whether #News or Mail, CUT headers & signatures, PRUNE quotations, and preserve #order. That is to say, quote above each part of your reply as much #of the earlier stuff as is needed to put the new material in context, #but no more; most readers will be able to refer to the earlier article #itself, if need be. Never write on the same line as a quotation, except #in lists and notes; generally leave a wholly blank line between. Do not #quote the header or the signature, unless it is relevant to do so. Whether one's interpretation of the above is "Microsoft said it, it must be true" or "Microsoft is saying it, which means it must be a standard that's been around so long that even they couldn't embrace and extend it", the message is the same. :) Now, I must say I find it quite humorous that their own official posting guidelines are violated by their own newsreader, but that's a whole other story. :) (Or is it...should you really think that all those Outlook users out there are doing the right thing when their client's default behaviour isn't even consistent with its author's employees' stated wishes?) >In this discussion, many replies are polite and informative but others >are cynical and rude, even they are written in 'good style'. I can sit >down and argue with you about compared to web, ftp, mp3, rm, how much >bandwidth is used for emails but I decide to quit this discussion just >because many of you are too righteous to hear about it. > >Have a very good day. >Bo Well, I'm still writing this followup in hopes that: 1) ...you are still reading the thread, if not replying, and your mind might still be changed, or 2) ...someone else who is on the fence will make the right decision. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Buttery) This .sig is dedicated to David T-G, the only person who noticed enough to wonder whether I was typing these in manually the last time I broke my sig rotation script. msg30804/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: location of signature.
Alas! Vikram Goyal spake thus: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 09:32:05PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote: > > 'set sig_on_top' is all I need. Just as Mutt user's manual says: 'It is > > strongly recommended that you do not set this variable unless you really > > know what you are doing, and are prepared to take some heat from > > netiquette guardians.', I was taught some lessons by the guardians. :-) > > > > Thank you. > > Bo > > Also remember some people have taught their editors to remove sigs > automatically while replying. Just imagine what would happen to the > message with a top signature. Yeah, the fullquote on the bottom would be removed -- not such a bad thing ;) perhaps mutt could be made to detect TOFU and set sig_on_top automatically if it is TOFU, unset it otherwise... -- Rob 'Feztaa' Park http://members.shaw.ca/feztaa/ -- Please go away. msg30796/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: location of signature.
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 09:32:05PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote: > 'set sig_on_top' is all I need. Just as Mutt user's manual says: 'It is > strongly recommended that you do not set this variable unless you really > know what you are doing, and are prepared to take some heat from > netiquette guardians.', I was taught some lessons by the guardians. :-) > > Thank you. > Bo Also remember some people have taught their editors to remove sigs automatically while replying. Just imagine what would happen to the message with a top signature. -- Vikram Goyal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: location of signature.
At 1:37 AM EDT on September 6 Paul Brannan sent off: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I disagree. While bottom posting is appropriate for most public forums > (because discussions on these forums generally involve a point-by-point > debate), there is a valid use for top posting. In particular, if > someone sends you a long email (and it is necessary and/or appropriate > to quote the email or a large portion of it), then replying at the top > saves the reader the time of scrolling to the bottom to find the reply. > Generally, this situation arises in personal emails much more so than it > does in public forums. I don't see how that's valid for replies, but I sometimes use it for *forwards*. i.e. I am passing this on to you because bla bla bla... - Content of forwarded message -- instead of putting bla bla bla down here where they won't see it right away. -- Diplomacy is the art of letting the other party have things your way. - Daniele Vare Robert I. Reid | PGP/GPG Keys: http://astro.utoronto.ca/~reid/pgp.html
Re: location of signature.
On Fri, 06 Sep 2002, Paul Brannan wrote: > folder? My procmailrc searches for "^TO.*mutt-users", but mutt-users > doesn't seem to be anywhere in the headers (unless I missed it somehow). Try this: :0: * ^TO_mutt-users@mutt\.org mutt :0: * ^TO_mutt-users@gbnet\.net mutt :0: * ^TO_mutt-announce@mutt\.org mutt Oliver -- ... don't touch the bang-bang fruit
Re: location of signature.
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 01:37:20AM -0400, Paul Brannan wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Top posting sends the message "I am so much more important than all > > several hundred of you others on this list that I don't care how much of > > your time I waste." > > > > Bottom posting says "I respect the others on this list and I will take a > > little extra time to make sure I don't waste the time of all the hundreds > > of others on this list." > > I disagree. While bottom posting is appropriate for most public forums > (because discussions on these forums generally involve a point-by-point > debate), there is a valid use for top posting. In particular, if > someone sends you a long email (and it is necessary and/or appropriate > to quote the email or a large portion of it), then replying at the top > saves the reader the time of scrolling to the bottom to find the reply. > Generally, this situation arises in personal emails much more so than it > does in public forums. Two Points - first My discussion was only about posting to lists and newsgroups, not personal emails (where anything goes, top post away:)). Second - Even on a long email top posting is problematic for the same reasons already given. Thats why you have an editor. Delete the extraneous portions of the long email and include only the portions being replied to. If the result is still long then it at least has all of the necessary context. To do otherwise is taking the easy way out. Which is no great sin actually. "See the amazing egress!" > > BTW, why did this post show up in my inbox rather than in my mutt > folder? My procmailrc searches for "^TO.*mutt-users", but mutt-users > doesn't seem to be anywhere in the headers (unless I missed it somehow). > What part of the header should I be filtering on? > > I also notice that neither list-reply nor group-reply works with the > post I am responding to; I had to paste mutt-users into the Cc: line to > reply to the list. Any ideas why? List reply ? there's a LIST REPLY ? Time for more RTM ! (I'm afraid Elm is still programmed into my fingers, just like vi. :) -- Jeff Kinz, Director, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" copyright 1995-2002. Use restricted to non-UCE uses. Any other use is an acceptance of the offer at http://www.ultranet.com/~jkinz/policy.html. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" copyright 2002. Use is restricted. Any use is an acceptance of the offer at http://users.rcn.com/jkinz/policy.html. (¬_-o) //\ eLviintuaxbilse/\\ V_/_ _\_V
Re: location of signature.
Paul, et al -- ...and then Paul Brannan said... % % On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: % > Top posting sends the message "I am so much more important than all ... % > Bottom posting says "I respect the others on this list and I will take a ... % % I disagree. While bottom posting is appropriate for most public forums % (because discussions on these forums generally involve a point-by-point % debate), there is a valid use for top posting. In particular, if % someone sends you a long email (and it is necessary and/or appropriate % to quote the email or a large portion of it), then replying at the top % saves the reader the time of scrolling to the bottom to find the reply. I tried so hard to stay out of this debate... *sigh* I'm not terribly good at being politely objective; there's a lot of Dogbert in me, too. If you can get what you need from the reply at the top, then why on earth do you need to send back the original anyway? Someone sent it and you got it, so everyone has it, and then you send your single reply that doesn't have to be associated contextually so just don't send the quote. % ... % BTW, why did this post show up in my inbox rather than in my mutt As far as I can tell, Bo's direct reply was also BCCd to mutt-users. The message passed thru the server but it wasn't publicly addressed to the list. I'm not even going to begin to wonder why; that's a whole new can of worms. Of course, without any list addressing, List-Reply and the like can't know that you mean for a reply to go back to a mailing list and act accordingly. HTH & HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg30756/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: location of signature.
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 10:10:31AM +0100, Sam Bashton wrote: > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 01:37:20AM -0400, Paul Brannan wrote: > > BTW, why did this post show up in my inbox rather than in my mutt > > folder? My procmailrc searches for "^TO.*mutt-users", but mutt-users > > doesn't seem to be anywhere in the headers (unless I missed it somehow). > > What part of the header should I be filtering on? > > > > I also notice that neither list-reply nor group-reply works with the > > post I am responding to; I had to paste mutt-users into the Cc: line to > > reply to the list. Any ideas why? > > I had the same problem, so procmail now filters on the Return-Path: line. > Seems to work so far at least.. I have been using : * ^Sender.*mutt.org And it hasn't missed any mutt emails (yet). This puts emails from all mutt lists in the same folder. I prefer to filter on X-List-ID but the mutt list doesn't provide this header. -- Jeff Kinz, Director, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" copyright 1995-2002. Use restricted to non-UCE uses. Any other use is an acceptance of the offer at http://www.ultranet.com/~jkinz/policy.html. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" copyright 2002. Use is restricted. Any use is an acceptance of the offer at http://users.rcn.com/jkinz/policy.html. (¬_-o) //\ eLviintuaxbilse/\\ V_/_ _\_V
Re: location of signature.
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 01:37:20AM -0400, Paul Brannan wrote: > BTW, why did this post show up in my inbox rather than in my mutt > folder? My procmailrc searches for "^TO.*mutt-users", but mutt-users > doesn't seem to be anywhere in the headers (unless I missed it somehow). > What part of the header should I be filtering on? > > I also notice that neither list-reply nor group-reply works with the > post I am responding to; I had to paste mutt-users into the Cc: line to > reply to the list. Any ideas why? I had the same problem, so procmail now filters on the Return-Path: line. Seems to work so far at least.. -- Sam Bashton Systems Administrator IP Support
Re: location of signature.
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Top posting sends the message "I am so much more important than all > several hundred of you others on this list that I don't care how much of > your time I waste." > > Bottom posting says "I respect the others on this list and I will take a > little extra time to make sure I don't waste the time of all the hundreds > of others on this list." I disagree. While bottom posting is appropriate for most public forums (because discussions on these forums generally involve a point-by-point debate), there is a valid use for top posting. In particular, if someone sends you a long email (and it is necessary and/or appropriate to quote the email or a large portion of it), then replying at the top saves the reader the time of scrolling to the bottom to find the reply. Generally, this situation arises in personal emails much more so than it does in public forums. BTW, why did this post show up in my inbox rather than in my mutt folder? My procmailrc searches for "^TO.*mutt-users", but mutt-users doesn't seem to be anywhere in the headers (unless I missed it somehow). What part of the header should I be filtering on? I also notice that neither list-reply nor group-reply works with the post I am responding to; I had to paste mutt-users into the Cc: line to reply to the list. Any ideas why? Thanks, Paul
Re: location of signature.
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 05:00:19PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote: > This will be my last post about this topic. I am not gonna waste more > time on this trivial issue, even if it is important to many of you. > > I do not know exactly how many people reply before quoted message but > over 90% of my daily emails are in this style and I can see this kind of > emails all over the Internet. Maybe they are all bad-mannered people, > maybe they are all corrupted by M$, I feel quite comfortable with this > style and will continue to use it. Ah, ignorance. And unwillfulness to learn. The dark side they are. -- Ralf Hildebrandt (Im Auftrag des Referat V A) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charite Campus Virchow-Klinikum Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Referat V A - Kommunikationsnetze - Fax. +49 (0)30-450 570-916 Das Briefgeheimnis sowie das Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis sind unverletzlich. -- Grundgesetz, Artikel 10, Abs. 1 Auch wenn Otto Schily das anders sieht.
Re: location of signature.
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 06:01:48PM -0600, Peter T. Abplanalp wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > As for the manner on this group, you are correct. This group can > > be a little rougher in its treatment of newbies than most others. > > I'm not sure why they think they have to be but its just the select few > > self-appointed/self-anointed ego-geek types. Not untypical. Don't let > > 'em bust your chops too much. > > anyone who thinks bo's treatment was rough hasn't been on very many > lists. of course, the off list emails might have been the ones that > were rough. I think I'm referring mostly to Linux oriented lists which have topics that tend to attract newbies. They are not subjected to as much abuse there I guess because most of those people feel a little bit like they are trying to attract more people to Open Source as opposed to trying to frighten them away. :) Quoting Sven "Mutt is not for everyone" is an OK premise but I do worry that the way the message is delivered has a negative affect on how Open Source is perceived by persons who have been the recipients of those messages. -- Jeff Kinz, Director, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" copyright 1995-2002. Use restricted to non-UCE uses. Any other use is an acceptance of the offer at http://www.ultranet.com/~jkinz/policy.html. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" copyright 2002. Use is restricted. Any use is an acceptance of the offer at http://users.rcn.com/jkinz/policy.html. (¬_-o) //\ eLviintuaxbilse/\\ V_/_ _\_V
Re: location of signature.
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As for the manner on this group, you are correct. This group can > be a little rougher in its treatment of newbies than most others. > I'm not sure why they think they have to be but its just the select few > self-appointed/self-anointed ego-geek types. Not untypical. Don't let > 'em bust your chops too much. anyone who thinks bo's treatment was rough hasn't been on very many lists. of course, the off list emails might have been the ones that were rough. -- Peter Abplanalp PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg30733/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: location of signature.
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 05:00:19PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote: > This will be my last post about this topic. I am not gonna waste more > time on this trivial issue, even if it is important to many of you. Hi Bo, One time, about, oh, twenty or so years ago I felt the same way you currently do about top posting. I was "gently" educated then as you are being now. :) Over time I came to understand why bottom posting is so important. Its actually very simple. When you top post to a list or newsgroup you are doing what's easy for you. It saves you time. Unfortunately it causes the waste of time for every other person on the list. Why - because top posting removes your response from the context you are responding to. People must spend extra time to look for what you are responding to in order to understand what the discussion is about. (and no, they can't just remember, they get hundreds of emails a day.) Top posting sends the message "I am so much more important than all several hundred of you others on this list that I don't care how much of your time I waste." Bottom posting says "I respect the others on this list and I will take a little extra time to make sure I don't waste the time of all the hundreds of others on this list." I realize that you may not agree with this but please understand that it is both the official and unofficial law of most email lists and newsgroups on the internet. Those places that don't use it are just full of clueless newbies like I was, (hope its a "was" :) ), that just haven't figured out that they are needlessly wasting tons of time. As for the manner on this group, you are correct. This group can be a little rougher in its treatment of newbies than most others. I'm not sure why they think they have to be but its just the select few self-appointed/self-anointed ego-geek types. Not untypical. Don't let 'em bust your chops too much. There will always be some folks like that around. In this case those folks just happen to be very knowledgeable about the issue at hand (how to use mutt) so nobody in this list will be trying to reign in their behavior even if it is unnecessary IMHO. Regarding the use of bandwidth, see below > > I do not know exactly how many people reply before quoted message but > over 90% of my daily emails are in this style and I can see this kind of > emails all over the Internet. Maybe they are all bad-mannered people, > maybe they are all corrupted by M$, I feel quite comfortable with this > style and will continue to use it. > > In this discussion, many replies are polite and informative but others > are cynical and rude, even they are written in 'good style'. I can sit > down and argue with you about compared to web, ftp, mp3, rm, how much > bandwidth is used for emails but I decide to quit this discussion just > because many of you are too righteous to hear about it. People subscribe to email lists and newsgroups so anything posted to those lists or groups is automatically delivered. The subscribers don't get a choice and if we do the math - 1 email times hundreds or thousands of subscribers we can see that its a very bad idea to use anymore bandwidth than the absolute minimum when posting. Think of it as a broadcast. The other things you mentioned are individual activities initiated by the users choice so the expenditure of bandwidth is under their control. When you post/broadcast you are making the choice to expend other people bandwidth without their consent so use as little of it as you can. Its just another application of the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (man, I can't believe I actually had to put that in a post :) ) And seeing how long this is I'd better stop now before I use any mor.. -- Jeff Kinz, Director, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" copyright 1995-2002. Use restricted to non-UCE uses. Any other use is an acceptance of the offer at http://www.ultranet.com/~jkinz/policy.html. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" copyright 2002. Use is restricted. Any use is an acceptance of the offer at http://users.rcn.com/jkinz/policy.html. (¬_-o) //\ eLviintuaxbilse/\\ V_/_ _\_V
Re: location of signature.
On Thu, Sep 5, 2002, Bo Peng wrote: > I do not know exactly how many people reply before quoted message but > over 90% of my daily emails are in this style and I can see this kind of > emails all over the Internet. Maybe they are all bad-mannered people, > maybe they are all corrupted by M$, I feel quite comfortable with this > style and will continue to use it. I think the more common issue is that they just don't know any better. -Ken
Re: location of signature.
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 05:00:19PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote: > In this discussion, many replies are polite and informative but others > are cynical and rude, even they are written in 'good style'. I can sit > down and argue with you about compared to web, ftp, mp3, rm, how much > bandwidth is used for emails but I decide to quit this discussion just > because many of you are too righteous to hear about it. i find this interesting. you say you are going to quit this discussion because people are too righteous to discuss it with you and yet you fail to address the points that many of the polite posters have brought up. i suppose quiting is easier than discussing these issues. 1) when multiple points are made in the email, it is much nicer to see the reply below the point being addressed. 2) tofu leads to very long emails in which you need to start at the bottom and read backwards in order to get a good idea of what is going on. most cultures read from the top down. 3) it is impolite to use this format in a technical forum. a response to this email would be a good place for you to practice. no extra charge. -- Peter Abplanalp PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg30730/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: location of signature.
This will be my last post about this topic. I am not gonna waste more time on this trivial issue, even if it is important to many of you. I do not know exactly how many people reply before quoted message but over 90% of my daily emails are in this style and I can see this kind of emails all over the Internet. Maybe they are all bad-mannered people, maybe they are all corrupted by M$, I feel quite comfortable with this style and will continue to use it. In this discussion, many replies are polite and informative but others are cynical and rude, even they are written in 'good style'. I can sit down and argue with you about compared to web, ftp, mp3, rm, how much bandwidth is used for emails but I decide to quit this discussion just because many of you are too righteous to hear about it. Have a very good day. Bo
Re: location of signature.
At 9:39 PM EDT on September 4 Bo Peng sent off: > There is nothing wrong with either order. Nobody is 'corrupted' by > anything. Wrong. People are. > Software as good as mutt should be neutral between these > preferences, i.e. provides support for both styles. No, good != neutral. Good software makes bad behavior hard. As far as bandwidth is concerned, you may not mind, but those using modems, especially in areas where internet/phone time is expensive, do mind. -- loquacity, n. A disorder which renders the sufferer unable to curb his tongue when you wish to talk. - Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary. Robert I. Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://astro.utoronto.ca/~reid/ PGP Key: http://astro.utoronto.ca/~reid/pgp.html
Re: location of signature.
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 01:00:49PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote: > Are there good manners? yes, there are. i am going to make an assumption here and assume that english is not your first language (no slight intended.) let's say you and two other people are talking, one speaks your native language and the other does not. is it mannerly to speak in your native language and exclude the third person? i think we can agree that it isn't. likewise when you post to a list, you should speak like those already present. that is mannerly. top posting isn't mannerly on the majority of lists on which i lurk. when in rome... -- Peter Abplanalp PGP: pgp.mit.edu msg30724/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: location of signature.
Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I post an email, asking a simple question. What happened? You ignored thirty years of netiquette and suggested it was okay to do so. > Are there good manners? Most of us still have them. You don't. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: location of signature.
I post an email, asking a simple question. What happened? I suppose that not only Will know the answer. However, I was defined as a M$ follower, a corrupted newbie. I was then directed to a manner class. After I expressed my personal preference. I get more emails, not limited to what you have seen in this mailing list. More emails, to save precious bandwidth, I suppose, were sent directly to me. Are there good manners? Bo
Re: location of signature.
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-09-04 18:17:34 -0500: > OK. I found the messages and I am not glad about those so-called rules. Yes. Ah, so-called good manners. Such a useless junk! > I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this has > nothing to do with M$. It is natural (to me) to put important part (my > reply) before non-important part (quote) Yes. Just as it's natural to answer questions before they're asked. > and keep my signature closer to the main body. Yes. Just as you put your signature at the top of paper letters. > This also makes an email easier to read if the quote is long. Which of itself is rude enough. -- begin 666 nonexistent.vbs FreeBSD 4.6-STABLE 5:14PM up 15 days, 23:06, 8 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 end
Re: location of signature.
* Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-04 23:17]: > OK. I found the messages and I am not glad about those so-called rules. > I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and .. > [unedited fullquote] thankyou. that's certainly enough. Sven -- echo black_list [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs
Re: location of signature.
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 06:17:34PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote: > > OK. I found the messages and I am not glad about those so-called rules. > I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text A: Top posters Q: What's the most annoying thing about email these days? -- Jonathan Perkin - BBC Internet Services - http://support.bbc.co.uk/ Please check email headers for any relevant contact details
Re: location of signature.
Jussi Ekholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But please, remember to use correct signature delimiter ("-- ",
> that is "dash-dash-space")! O:-)
ITYM 'that is "dash-dash-space", dammit'.
Charles
--
---
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.ca/~charlesc/software/
---
Re: location of signature.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK. I found the messages and I am not glad about those so-called
> rules.
These so-called rules are called "netiquette". Heard of it?
> I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this
> has nothing to do with M$.
How odd. I THINK it is better to put the reply AFTER the quoted text
and this has absolutely _nothing_ to do with M$.
> It is natural (to me) to put important part (my reply) before
> non-important part (quote) and keep my signature closer to the main
> body. This also makes an email easier to read if the quote is long.
First of all, quote is _not_ supposed to be long. The quoted text
should only contain the important parts, i.e. providing the context.
Quotes should be trimmed so, that you preserve a parts of quoted text
which contain something the previous writer said that you want to
comment to. Quoted text should _never_ be left untrimmed.
> If mutt does not have this function, it is perfectly fine. But there
> is nothing wrong with M$ to provide it!
I think there's plenty of wrong there, that M$ Outlook encourages
its users to quote the whole goddamn message (and eventually the whole
goddamn thread). If you are writing in Usenet or in mailing lists, you
should know the guidelines of what is a Good Thing and what is not.
Top-posting definitely isn't a Good Thing and neither is untrimmed
quotes.
By the way -- by all means, place your signature on top of your
mails! But please, remember to use correct signature delimiter ("-- ",
that is "dash-dash-space")! O:-)
- --
Jussi Ekholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
Re: location of signature.
'set sig_on_top' is all I need. Just as Mutt user's manual says: 'It is strongly recommended that you do not set this variable unless you really know what you are doing, and are prepared to take some heat from netiquette guardians.', I was taught some lessons by the guardians. :-) Thank you. Bo
Re: location of signature.
Bo Peng wrote: >>> I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this >>> has nothing to do with M$. It is natural (to me) to put important >>> part (my reply) before non-important part (quote) >> I understand your line of reasoning, but I think most people (if they >> haven't been corrupted by years of the other way) prefer a temporal >> ordering, i.e. old stuff at top, new stuff at bottom. > There is nothing wrong with either order. Nobody is 'corrupted' by > anything. Software as good as mutt should be neutral between these > preferences, i.e. provides support for both styles. It *does* support both styles set sig_on_top And even M$ knows it's bad to top post or fullquote: http://www.jsiinc.com/newsgroup_document.htm >>> This also makes an email easier to read if the quote is long. >> The quote should not be long, and the biggest reason why so many >> UNIX types hate M$ for promulgating the bottom quote style is that >> it encourages people to attach entire threads at the bottom of each >> message, guaranteeing that noone will ever read them. > I do not see anything wrong with quoting the whole message. It is a good > reference if the reader need to read it or it can be ignored easily. I > do not think bandwidth is an issue too. The picture I sent yesterday > would have cost the bandwidth of 1000 emails' quoted text. > > I will write a vim function to insert my signature. Fullquoting is extremely rude... especially on a discussion list, since people looking through the archives have to look through mounds and mounds of fullquoted messages. I would much rather have someone top post than full quote, but I find that most of the time, the two go together. -- Will Yardley input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >
Re: location of signature.
* Bo Peng ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [05 Sep 2002 11:40]: [...] > I do not see anything wrong with quoting the whole message. It is a > good reference if the reader need to read it or it can be ignored > easily. But I already have the previous messages. I can press P and read them. A much better reference is the appropriate text spliced by the reply. That way, I get immediate context for the reply rather than having to flip to the bottom of the email, which could be quite long and thus several pages down and then back up. > I do not think bandwidth is an issue too. The picture I sent yesterday > would have cost the bandwidth of 1000 emails' quoted text. But you weren't sending that picture to 1000 people. How many people are on this list? Multiply the size of your email by that number. Then, assume a thread that has gone on for a while. Start using factorials to calculate the bandwidth use. Anyway, to cut to the chase, it all gets bigger. The key is not how much bandwidth you use, but how much you waste. I have no doubt that your picture was appropriately important. I have to question, however, the importance of, say, this email having the text of all previous emails within the thread. Needless. P ( ) is your friend. All in all: it's a debate that has gone on for quite some time. Those experienced in the Internet have a preferred way that they have arrived at from experimentation and empirical analysis. Those inexperienced in the net just use whatever they think of. Eventually, they learn. cheers, -- Iain.
Re: location of signature.
The discussion has gone closely to personal attack. I might have triggered some anti-M$ feelings. :-( > > I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this has > > nothing to do with M$. It is natural (to me) to put important part (my > > reply) before non-important part (quote) > I understand your line of reasoning, but I think most people (if they haven't > been corrupted by years of the other way) prefer a temporal ordering, i.e. old > stuff at top, new stuff at bottom. There is nothing wrong with either order. Nobody is 'corrupted' by anything. Software as good as mutt should be neutral between these preferences, i.e. provides support for both styles. > > This also makes an email easier to read if the quote is long. > The quote should not be long, and the biggest reason why so many UNIX types > hate M$ for promulgating the bottom quote style is that it encourages people to > attach entire threads at the bottom of each message, guaranteeing that noone > will ever read them. I do not see anything wrong with quoting the whole message. It is a good reference if the reader need to read it or it can be ignored easily. I do not think bandwidth is an issue too. The picture I sent yesterday would have cost the bandwidth of 1000 emails' quoted text. I will write a vim function to insert my signature. Bo
Re: location of signature.
* Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09-04-02 18:22]: > > It is natural (to me) to put important part (my reply) before non-important > part (quote) If the quote isn't important, leave it out altogether. Notice how I didn't quote all of the text of the original message? Notice how much easier to read it is this way? Mail-Followup-To: set. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: location of signature.
* Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09-04-02 18:22]: > > OK. I found the messages and I am not glad about those so-called rules. > I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this has > nothing to do with M$. It is natural (to me) to put important part (my > reply) before non-important part (quote) and keep my signature closer to > the main body. This also makes an email easier to read if the quote is > long. If mutt does not have this function, it is perfectly fine. But > there is nothing wrong with M$ to provide it! You ARE entitled to your ?OPINION?. Hope you have a flak jacket. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org
Re: location of signature.
At 7:17 PM EDT on September 4 Bo Peng sent off: > I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this has > nothing to do with M$. It is natural (to me) to put important part (my > reply) before non-important part (quote) I understand your line of reasoning, but I think most people (if they haven't been corrupted by years of the other way) prefer a temporal ordering, i.e. old stuff at top, new stuff at bottom. > and keep my signature closer to the main body. I'd rather keep each sentence of my reply as close as possible to the point that it is replying to. > This also makes an email easier to read if the quote is long. The quote should not be long, and the biggest reason why so many UNIX types hate M$ for promulgating the bottom quote style is that it encourages people to attach entire threads at the bottom of each message, guaranteeing that noone will ever read them. -- ...from a gulf beyond the sun and stars that illume the Lethean shoals and the vague lands of somnolent visions, I floated on a black unrippling tide to the dark threshold of a dream. - Clark Ashton Smith Robert I. Reid | PGP/GPG Keys: http://astro.utoronto.ca/~reid/pgp.html
Re: location of signature.
OK. I found the messages and I am not glad about those so-called rules. I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this has nothing to do with M$. It is natural (to me) to put important part (my reply) before non-important part (quote) and keep my signature closer to the main body. This also makes an email easier to read if the quote is long. If mutt does not have this function, it is perfectly fine. But there is nothing wrong with M$ to provide it! Bo On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:14:55PM -0400, -dsr- wrote: > Bo Peng wrote: > > I am sorry but I could not find this message. Could you tell me its > > subject or date? Is it in mutt-user group? > > > > > This discussion (Message-ID 8gcg1a$qte$[EMAIL PROTECTED]) may > > > be helpful for you. > It's a message ID. Go search Google Groups for it; you'll get a 12 > message thread. > -dsr-
Re: location of signature.
Bo Peng wrote: > I am sorry but I could not find this message. Could you tell me its > subject or date? Is it in mutt-user group? > > > This discussion (Message-ID 8gcg1a$qte$[EMAIL PROTECTED]) may > > be helpful for you. It's a message ID. Go search Google Groups for it; you'll get a 12 message thread. -dsr- -- Robin: "Where'd you get a live fish, Batman?" Batman: "The true crimefighter always carries everything he needs in his utility belt, Robin."
Re: location of signature.
I am sorry but I could not find this message. Could you tell me its subject or date? Is it in mutt-user group? Thanks. Bo On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 08:16:12PM +0200, Heiko Heil wrote: > * Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09/04/2002 18:01]: > > Mutt automatically put the signature at the end of the email. Can I let > > it be put before the quoted text? > This discussion (Message-ID 8gcg1a$qte$[EMAIL PROTECTED]) may > be helpful for you.
Re: location of signature.
* Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09/04/2002 18:01]: > Mutt automatically put the signature at the end of the email. Can I let > it be put before the quoted text? This discussion (Message-ID 8gcg1a$qte$[EMAIL PROTECTED]) may be helpful for you. -- Best regards Heiko
Re: location of signature.
# Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> / 2002-09-04 10:24:57 + (-0500): > Hi, Everyone, > > Mutt automatically put the signature at the end of the email. Can I let > it be put before the quoted text? yes. use Outlook. -- FreeBSD 4.6-STABLE 5:32PM up 14 days, 23:25, 8 users, load averages: 0.02, 0.03, 0.03
Re: Location of signature in replies
Corey --
...and then Corey G. said...
% On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 07:36:06AM -0400, Hall Stevenson wrote:
% > > >> By the way, where are you finding netiquette rules for email? I am
...
% > > >http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html .) As with most RFCs, this is
...
% > You're exactly right though. Writing an e-mail message does *not* negate
% > all the "rules" !
%
% You guys just will not give up until I follow the rules. I like
% persistence and therefore will try to follow the RFC.
Hey, cool. Yes, that will make lots of folks happy. This really boils
down to an age-old religious war :-)
%
% Everyone should be happy now.
Um... Well, if you *really* want to make everyone happy, you can be a
bit more agressive in your trimming; there was a gawdawful lot up there
even though you only needed to directly reference the most recent part.
I think that a common misconception (IMHO) these days is that the entire
past history of the email thread has to be included just in case someone
new gets added and needs to catch up. I figure that anyone new can
either pick up on the background or get bounced copies of the original
mail instead of sending this vastly- and quickly-growing note around.
But that's just *my* opinion :-)
%
% >
% > Regards,
% > Hall
% >
% ---end quoted text---
Another thing that might make mutt-mail more convenient for you is that
you don't need to include such a marker; when you run out of quoting
prefixes ('>' chars or, in my case, '% ' chars, for example), then you've
run out of quoted text.
%
% --
% Best Regards,
% Corey
HTH & HAND
:-D
--
David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
The "new millennium" starts at the beginning of 2001. There was no year 0.
Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh*
PGP signature
Re: Location of signature in replies
On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 07:36:06AM -0400, Hall Stevenson wrote: > > >> By the way, where are you finding netiquette rules for email? I am > > >> curious. > > > > > >The standard reference is RFC 1855. (One place you can find this is > > >http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html .) As with most RFCs, this is > > > > A much better reference is any standard book on good writing. Just > > because you use a keyboard instead of a pen (or a quill, for that > matter) > > does not change the fact that you are communicating :) > > Are you telling me I need to check the spelling of e-mail messages and > check for use of proper grammar too ?? ;-) > > You're exactly right though. Writing an e-mail message does *not* negate > all the "rules" ! You guys just will not give up until I follow the rules. I like persistence and therefore will try to follow the RFC. Everyone should be happy now. > > Regards, > Hall > ---end quoted text--- -- Best Regards, Corey
Re: Location of signature in replies
* Corey G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Tue, May 23, 2000 at 07:30:23PM -0500) > This is quite funny. You are explaining proper netiquette with a signature > that contains "Fuck you". I guess netiquette and etiquette are not > considered the same. :) True. My signature is just meant to bring a smile .. It's generated randomly whenever I send an email set signature="randsig|" in .muttrc (and have a program called randsig that geenrates random signatures ;) Gerhard, <@jasongeo.com> == The Acoustic Motorbiker == -- __O If your watch is wound, wound to run, it will =`\<, If your time is due, due to come, it will (=)/(=) Living this life, is like trying to learn latin in a chines firedrill
Re: Location of signature in replies
> >> By the way, where are you finding netiquette rules for email? I am > >> curious. > > > >The standard reference is RFC 1855. (One place you can find this is > >http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html .) As with most RFCs, this is > > A much better reference is any standard book on good writing. Just > because you use a keyboard instead of a pen (or a quill, for that matter) > does not change the fact that you are communicating :) Are you telling me I need to check the spelling of e-mail messages and check for use of proper grammar too ?? ;-) You're exactly right though. Writing an e-mail message does *not* negate all the "rules" ! Regards, Hall
Re: Location of signature in replies
Brian D. Winters proclaimed on mutt-users that: >On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 07:30:23PM -0500, Corey G. wrote: >> By the way, where are you finding netiquette rules for email? I am >> curious. > >The standard reference is RFC 1855. (One place you can find this is >http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html .) As with most RFCs, this is A much better reference is any standard book on good writing. Just because you use a keyboard instead of a pen (or a quill, for that matter) does not change the fact that you are communicating :) -suresh -- Suresh Ramasubramanian | sureshr at staff.juno.com You can't carve your way to success without cutting remarks.
Re: Location of signature in replies
On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 07:30:23PM -0500, Corey G. wrote: > By the way, where are you finding netiquette rules for email? I am > curious. The standard reference is RFC 1855. (One place you can find this is http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html .) As with most RFCs, this is rather long, and some common interpretations may not be obvious the first read through. You could view this thread as the edited highlights of RFC 1855. :) Brian
Re: Location of signature in replies
This is quite funny. You are explaining proper netiquette with a signature that contains "Fuck you". I guess netiquette and etiquette are not considered the same.:) By the way, where are you finding netiquette rules for email? I am curious. n Tue, May 23, 2000 at 10:08:31AM +0200, Gerhard den Hollander wrote: > * Corey G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000523 02:06]: > > Sounds fair enough. > > According to proper netiquette > - your reply should FOLLOW the text you're replying to > putting the reply before the text is a M$ mailer induced braindeadism l) > - the signature belongs at the end of an email. > That's what signatures are. > - Only quote those portions of the email you are replying to, that are > relevant to the topic at hand. > > > >>> When I reply to an email my signature is getting placed at the very > >>> bottom of the email instead of at the end of my reply. Does anyone know > >>> of a way to change the location? > >> The signature belongs at the end of the email. > > Gerhard, [@jasongeo.com] == The Acoustic Motorbiker == > -- > __O And GOD said: > =`\<, "Look after the planet" > (=)/(=) But man said: "Fuck you" > > ---end quoted text--- -- Best Regards, Corey
Re: Location of signature in replies
* Corey G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000523 02:06]: > Sounds fair enough. According to proper netiquette - your reply should FOLLOW the text you're replying to putting the reply before the text is a M$ mailer induced braindeadism l) - the signature belongs at the end of an email. That's what signatures are. - Only quote those portions of the email you are replying to, that are relevant to the topic at hand. >>> When I reply to an email my signature is getting placed at the very >>> bottom of the email instead of at the end of my reply. Does anyone know >>> of a way to change the location? >> The signature belongs at the end of the email. Gerhard, [@jasongeo.com] == The Acoustic Motorbiker == -- __O And GOD said: =`\<, "Look after the planet" (=)/(=) But man said: "Fuck you"
Re: Location of signature in replies
Corey G. [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > When I reply to an email my signature is getting placed at the very > bottom of the email instead of at the end of my reply. Does anyone know > of a way to change the location? The bottom of the email *is* the end of your reply if you're replying according to proper netiquette -- quote a section, give your reply, quote a section, give your reply, etc., reply, sig, end. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ -+-+-- the crises posed a question / just beneath the skin the virtue in my veins replied / that quitters never win PGP signature
Re: Location of signature in replies
Sounds fair enough. Thanks. On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 02:33:00AM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote: > Corey G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 22 May 2000: > > When I reply to an email my signature is getting placed at the very > > bottom of the email instead of at the end of my reply. Does anyone know > > of a way to change the location? > > The signature belongs at the end of the email. > > Warning: this may be a religious issue to some. :-) > > Anyway, the point is, because it's felt that signature belongs at the > very end, that is where it gets placed, and there is no option to put it > elsewhere. If you wish to have it elsewhere, you're free to take the > source code and modify it to your liking, or to create editor macros for > modifying the buffer when you start editing, whatever. I suspect that > none of the current developers will be inclined to write this code for > you. > > > Regards, > Mikko > -- > // Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ > // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / > // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs / > Shift happpens. - Doppler ---end quoted text--- -- Best Regards, Corey
Re: Location of signature in replies
Corey G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 22 May 2000: > When I reply to an email my signature is getting placed at the very > bottom of the email instead of at the end of my reply. Does anyone know > of a way to change the location? The signature belongs at the end of the email. Warning: this may be a religious issue to some. :-) Anyway, the point is, because it's felt that signature belongs at the very end, that is where it gets placed, and there is no option to put it elsewhere. If you wish to have it elsewhere, you're free to take the source code and modify it to your liking, or to create editor macros for modifying the buffer when you start editing, whatever. I suspect that none of the current developers will be inclined to write this code for you. Regards, Mikko -- // Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs / Shift happpens. - Doppler
