It would appear that on Dec 19, Raghavendra D Prabhu did say:
> In mutt, you cannot limit the quote context I guess and I
> don't want to limit the context by manually deleting the lines
{snip}
> For instance, while replying I make vim place cursor at the bottom
> of quoted reply to ease in rep
On 16-12-11 12:24, Jude DaShiell wrote:
[ bottom posting, nettiquette ]
The creators of the original email protocol could have if they chose put
together an rfc on top posting and writers of email programs could have
written software in such a way that top posting became impossible. None
of tha
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:07:59 +0100
Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> The 19/12/11, Ralf Madorf wrote:
>
> > PS: I mean, you should ban them using your MUAs filters, but a list
> > shouldn't do.
>
> Whatever the filtering purpose is about, any personal filter fails at
> the job because answers of others
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:56:44 +0530
Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote:
> Bot ? Since when is procmail a bot ?
meaning is what matters and anyway I'd say it is, procmail is
programmed to do what it does aka a robot.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:13:32 +0100
Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> What solution will you spread when some people will be tied to hear
> words like "suck", "fuck" and so?
Change the words to things like, flowery and angel.
Could be hilarious.
"Shut up you mother angel your so flowery lovely"
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Raghavendra D Prabhu
wrote:
> I use
> inline replies too given the circumstances. However, to avoid scrolling
> you can try using t-prot for folding. While replying, vim also folds my
> messages.
This whole discussion has nothing to do with scrolling, most mail
c
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 11:43 +0100, Ralf Madorf wrote:
> > >What solution will you spread when some people will be tied to hear
> > >words like "suck", "fuck" and so?
>
> Spencer Tracy in "Inherit the Wind" said (I only know the quote in
> German, so I might badly translate it): "We should use all
> >What solution will you spread when some people will be tied to hear
> >words like "suck", "fuck" and so?
Spencer Tracy in "Inherit the Wind" said (I only know the quote in
German, so I might badly translate it): "We should use all words that
are in layman's terms, since we don't have much of t
Hi,
* On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:13:32AM +0100, Nicolas Sebrecht
wrote:
Hi,
The 16/12/11, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote:
I am all for bottom posting if it helps the reader of my mail.
But,
* For instance, I use t-prot to fold the reply, so that I don't have
keep scrolling to read
* On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 07:47:03AM +0530, gt wrote:
Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial,
yet consistently brought up topic.
I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone
points out to someone that top posting is bad.
I was off the li
On Friday 16 Dec 2011 15:37:01 Ralf Madorf wrote:
> The Internet anonymity is grotesque, it's like talking to a chatbot like
> ELIZA (Weizenbaum is one of my idols :). Did you note that most Linux users
> use their real names :)?
>
> This is more important for me than thinking about top and bottom
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 03:17, gt wrote:
> Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial,
> yet consistently brought up topic.
>
> I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone
> points out to someone that top posting is bad.
>
> I was off the list
On 2011-12-16 at 11:16 +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> I agree.
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> > (...)
> >
> > My favourite option is to have someone with admin access to
> > the list (e.g. me...) just unsubscribe anyone who top posts.
Agreeing to unsubscribing top poste
Am 16.12.2011 04:47, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> Yeah lets all just spam fuck gmail devs because they won't add a automatic
> bottom posting feature.
>
> Seriously...
>
> +++
>
> Since I'm uncertain how to handle incoming emails in the future I still use
> my providers M$ thingy. I prefer bottom po
Am 16.12.2011 15:41, schrieb Gaetan Bisson:
> [2011-12-16 14:51:43 +0100] G. Schlisio:
>> for me, top posting seemed to save scrolling time, and everything
>> included after the reply i regarded as a reference for remembering
>> discussion on the topic.
> Did you see the movie "Memento"?
>
>> man,
[2011-12-16 14:51:43 +0100] G. Schlisio:
> for me, top posting seemed to save scrolling time, and everything
> included after the reply i regarded as a reference for remembering
> discussion on the topic.
Did you see the movie "Memento"?
> man, i cant think of something more stupid…
Well, do you
> On 12/16/2011 04:59, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> > i mean, people don't act the same way with their own family vs.
> > the internet allows for obscene levels of
> > anonymity that simply *cannot* exist in traditional/direct
> > communication
We are humans so it's not bad if we misbehave, act li
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 14:51 +0100, G. Schlisio wrote:
>
> Am 16.12.2011 11:20, schrieb Allan McRae:
> > On 16/12/11 12:17, gt wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > My favourite option is to have someone with admin access to the list
> > (e.g. me...) just unsubscribe anyone who top posts.
> >
> > Allan
> >
> r
Am 16.12.2011 11:20, schrieb Allan McRae:
On 16/12/11 12:17, gt wrote:
I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone
points out to someone that top posting is bad.
I was off the list for a while, and now when i came back, the story is
still the same.
And your email has
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 11:33 +0200, Rogutės Sparnuotos wrote:
> [snip]
> I have tried reading some of your messages in the last days, but it was
> too difficult to understand who you are talking with, what you are
> replying to and what do multiple lines of "+++" mean. Thought I'd simply
> ignore th
On 12/16/2011 04:59, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Rodrigo Amorim Bahiense
wrote:
On 12/16/2011 02:03, Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr. wrote:
I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they
should top or bottom post. A majority of mail clients and
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: arch-general-boun...@archlinux.org on behalf of Calvin Morrison
> Sent: Fri 12/16/2011 04:21
> To: General Discussion about Arch Linux
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
>
> On 1
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 08:20:42PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> And your email has changed the world and we will not see a repeat of
> this in the future. Hooray!
>
>
> My favourite option is to have someone with admin access to the list
> (e.g. me...) just unsubscribe anyone who top posts.
>
I
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 16/12/11 12:17, gt wrote:
[...]
> My favourite option is to have someone with admin access to the list
> (e.g. me...) just unsubscribe anyone who top posts.
Power corrupts, absolute power ... is even more fun :D
Rafa
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 05:19:59 +0100
"Ralf Mardorf" wrote:
> I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they
> should top or bottom post.
That is the real issue and banning top-posting solves most problems but
can actually cost a reader time in some cases.
Do unto others a
I agree.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 16/12/11 12:17, gt wrote:
>> I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone
>> points out to someone that top posting is bad.
>>
>> I was off the list for a while, and now when i came back, the story is
>> st
On 16/12/11 12:17, gt wrote:
> I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone
> points out to someone that top posting is bad.
>
> I was off the list for a while, and now when i came back, the story is
> still the same.
And your email has changed the world and we will not se
On 16/12/2011, at 06:19, Rafa Griman wrote:
>
> There are other reasons I've seen:
> - people that use "smart" phones have a limited screen size and
> it's "easier" to top post.
> - from a behavioural point of view, people follow these steps:
> 1.- read the whole mail
>
Ralf Mardorf (2011-12-16 04:47):
> -Original Message-
> From: arch-general-boun...@archlinux.org on behalf of Calvin Morrison
> Sent: Fri 12/16/2011 04:21
> To: General Discussion about Arch Linux
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
Your "M$ thingy
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: arch-general-boun...@archlinux.org on behalf of Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr.
> Sent: Fri 12/16/2011 05:03
>
> I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they
> should top or bottom post. A m
HI :)
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: arch-general-boun...@archlinux.org on behalf of Calvin Morrison
> Sent: Fri 12/16/2011 04:21
> To: General Discussion about Arch Linux
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisite
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Rodrigo Amorim Bahiense
wrote:
> On 12/16/2011 02:03, Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr. wrote:
>>
>> I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they
>> should top or bottom post. A majority of mail clients and
>> the aforementioned Gmail default to to
On 12/16/2011 02:03, Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr. wrote:
I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they
should top or bottom post. A majority of mail clients and
the aforementioned Gmail default to top posting. What I would like to know
is why is this the common practice. Obvio
[2011-12-16 04:47:14 +0100] Ralf Mardorf:
> Do we really need rules and rules and rules?
We don't. But it's not just about you writing messages the way you want:
it's about other people being able to read them conveniently, especially
you expect them to consider the points you are making or questi
When in a private correspondence, regardless of the number of
participants, the context is probably known and thus there is no need
to read previous replies. I would reply like this, because I only care
about what you and I are talking about at this point of time - there
is no need for any referenc
-Original Message-
From: arch-general-boun...@archlinux.org on behalf of Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr.
Sent: Fri 12/16/2011 05:03
I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they
should top or bottom post. A majority of mail clients and
the aforementioned Gmail default to t
I don't really think that people put any conscious thought into if they
should top or bottom post. A majority of mail clients and
the aforementioned Gmail default to top posting. What I would like to know
is why is this the common practice. Obviously, people on forums and mailing
lists like everyth
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Auguste Pop wrote:
> i'm not sure how the script works. i went to the link you gave and hit
> the install button. i closed all chromium instances and opened the
> browser again. still, bottom posting is not automatic.
Might be a Chromium issue. I'm on Firefox v3.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Alex Liu wrote:
> However, there exists a bottom posting script for Greasemonkey if you
> want to check that out.
> http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/35866
> An according lab feature has been suggested some time ago in the Gmail
> group, but as of no there has b
-Original Message-
From: arch-general-boun...@archlinux.org on behalf of Calvin Morrison
Sent: Fri 12/16/2011 04:21
To: General Discussion about Arch Linux
Subject: Re: [arch-general] Top Posting Revisited
On 15 December 2011 22:07, Sander Jansen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Kazuo Teramoto wrote:
> Part of the whole 'bottom posting' thing is about *reading* and
> *thinking* about the reply and not *automatic* replying to a message.
This.
I think it's not about if the reply is above or below whatever you
quote but because a full quot
On Dec 16, 2011 9:06 AM, "Kazuo Teramoto" wrote:
>
> On 2011-12-16T01:21:22, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> >Yeah lets all just spam fuck gmail devs because they won't add a
automatic
> >bottom posting feature.
> >
>
> I don't think this is a solution.
>
> Part of the whole 'bottom posting' thing is abo
On 2011-12-16T01:21:22, Calvin Morrison wrote:
>Yeah lets all just spam fuck gmail devs because they won't add a automatic
>bottom posting feature.
>
I don't think this is a solution.
Part of the whole 'bottom posting' thing is about *reading* and
*thinking* about the reply and not *automatic* re
On 15 December 2011 22:07, Sander Jansen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:17 PM, gt wrote:
> > Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial,
> > yet consistently brought up topic.
> >
> > I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone
> > points
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:17 PM, gt wrote:
> Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial,
> yet consistently brought up topic.
>
> I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone
> points out to someone that top posting is bad.
>
> I was off the lis
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:17 AM, gt wrote:
> Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial,
> yet consistently brought up topic.
I think it is very pertinent. I'll start a similar post in archlinux-br.
> I suggest all of the top-posting haters should including one of t
On 15 December 2011 21:17, gt wrote:
> Hello folks, i'll probably get flamed for reviving a very controversial,
> yet consistently brought up topic.
>
> I have seen a similar thread last year, and every other day, someone
> points out to someone that top posting is bad.
>
> I was off the list for
47 matches
Mail list logo
