On 5/19/2014 8:17 AM, Dominic Hoogendijk wrote:
> There are 2 lines of M$ mail clients, Mail that became Outlook express
> and then Mail again and Outlook (the exchange enabled client). --
> DeHostingFirma.nl
The original Microsoft Mail wasn't internet mail at all, it used a
completely proprietar
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 AM, mark wrote:
>> On 05/17/14 18:29, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
>>> Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
> I'ts not really a bad thing in the context of 1<->1 messages and
> business communications where you are interested enough to not ne
On 19-05-14 17:10, Dave Cross wrote:
> On 19 May 2014 15:47, wrote:
>> Dave Cross wrote:
>>> On 19 May 2014 13:06, mark wrote:
>>>
Wrong. It was M$ Lookout, er, Outlook, that introduced top posting by
default.
>>> I'm pretty sure that Microsoft email applications were top-posting
>>>
On 5/19/2014 9:02 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I'ts not really a bad thing in the context of 1<->1 messages and
> business communications where you are interested enough to not need
> the reply put in context for you but might want the audit-trail of the
> whole previous conversation for reference.
>
On 19 May 2014 15:47, wrote:
> Dave Cross wrote:
>> On 19 May 2014 13:06, mark wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong. It was M$ Lookout, er, Outlook, that introduced top posting by
>>> default.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that Microsoft email applications were top-posting
>> long before Outlook arrived :-)
>>
> I don't
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 AM, mark wrote:
> On 05/17/14 18:29, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
>> Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
>
>>> I blame M$ for introducing TOP POSTING.
>>
>> It makes no sense to blame a company, it is the people who don't make
>> enough effort to help everyone on
Dave Cross wrote:
> On 19 May 2014 13:06, mark wrote:
>
>> Wrong. It was M$ Lookout, er, Outlook, that introduced top posting by
>> default.
>
> I'm pretty sure that Microsoft email applications were top-posting
> long before Outlook arrived :-)
>
I don't think so. They only got email that was wid
On 19 May 2014 13:06, mark wrote:
> Wrong. It was M$ Lookout, er, Outlook, that introduced top posting by default.
I'm pretty sure that Microsoft email applications were top-posting
long before Outlook arrived :-)
Dave...
--
Dave Cross :: d...@dave.org.uk
http://dave.org.uk/
@davorg
_
On 05/17/14 18:29, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
>> I blame M$ for introducing TOP POSTING.
>
> It makes no sense to blame a company, it is the people who don't make
> enough effort to help everyone on a mailinglist to follow the
> discussions in an effici
On 5/18/2014 8:51 AM, Chris Weisiger wrote:
> > I'm posting from my phone so I can't bottom post
>
That is not a valid excuse. I'm posting from my phone now and I was able
to post properly.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.
On 5/18/2014 8:51 AM, Chris Weisiger wrote:
> I'm posting from my phone so I can't bottom post
then shut up til you can get on a proper computer that actually knows
how to email.
noone cares that you're crippling yourself by using a telephone
--
john r pierce
Am 18.05.2014 um 17:51 schrieb Chris Weisiger :
> I'm posting from my phone so I can't bottom post,
I can say that the usability of the mail application for such a goal
doesn't support it in the way to accomplishing it in an efficient manner,
but you can do it - it is not a nature law that is pr
ts. Now back to your regularly scheduled questions.
-Original Message-
From: "Dave Stevens"
Sent: 5/17/2014 7:07 PM
To: "CentOS mailing list" ; "Alexander Dalloz"
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Sorry
Quoting Alexander Dalloz :
> Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Le
Quoting Alexander Dalloz :
> Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
>>
>> Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200
>> lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
>
> False argument.
>
+1
___
Ce
On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 15:33 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:
> On 2014-05-17, Always Learning wrote:
> >
> > Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200
> > lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
>
> No, it doesn't. Just trim the excess.
Please
On Sun, 2014-05-18 at 00:29 +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
> >
> > Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200
> > lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
>
> False argument.
I am against TOP PO
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 03:36:16PM -0700, Russell Miller wrote:
> One of the adages that drove the creation of the Internet is thus: "Be
> conservative in what you
> send, and liberal in what you accept".
... says the person sending 100 character width emails :-)
--
rgds
Stephen
_
On May 17, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
>>
>> Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200
>> lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
>
> False argument.
In reading through this pe
On 2014-05-17, Always Learning wrote:
>
> Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200
> lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
No, it doesn't. Just trim the excess.
--keith
--
kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
__
Am 17.05.2014 23:22, schrieb Always Learning:
>
> Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200
> lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
False argument.
Top-posting is nearly always combined with fully quoting the previous
mailing. That is bsol
On 05/16/2014 06:40 PM, Original Woodchuck wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:27:23PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
>
Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
> It's polite and shows you are a gentleman. It's in the same category of
> "consideration for others" as keeping
Top posting ALWAYS makes sense when the poster has included nearly 200
lines of redundant and time-wasting waffle from previous posters.
Scrolling down - all the way down - to read a few words is time wasting
and irritating.
Until posters ruthlessly exclude all redundant material, top posting
ma
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:27:23PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> >> Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
It's polite and shows you are a gentleman. It's in the same category of
"consideration for others" as keeping to your locale's preferred side of
roads, hallways and s
Am 16.05.2014 um 19:07 schrieb Steve Clark :
> Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
because in conventional spelling systems of western languages
text is written from top to bottom (applies also for reading) :-)
--
LF
_
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 05/16/2014 03:17 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 01:07:16PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
>>> On 05/16/2014 12:52 PM, joseph.spen...@netwolves.securence.com wrote:
>>> Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top
On 05/16/2014 03:17 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 01:07:16PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
>> On 05/16/2014 12:52 PM, joseph.spen...@netwolves.securence.com wrote:
>> Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
>
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which pe
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 01:07:16PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 05/16/2014 12:52 PM, joseph.spen...@netwolves.securence.com wrote:
> >
> Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
>
>>
> Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
Because list messages go to many people who are only slightly
interested and it makes it difficult to know what question is being
answered.
> I have heard that is so when p
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
>
> Could someone explain again why we are not suppose to top post?
>
It is proper mailing list etiquette.
There's no hard and fast rule that a person cannot top post (c'mon it
happens). But it definitely is nice when people don't.
>
> I ha
There can be only... Mutt.
Eric
On 05/16, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Joseph Spenner wrote:
> >>From: Wes James
> >
> >>To: centos@centos.org
> >>Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 9:42 AM
> >>Subject: [CentOS] Sorry
> >
> >>
> >>So
Steve Clark wrote:
> On 05/16/2014 12:52 PM, joseph.spen...@netwolves.securence.com wrote:
>>> From: Wes James
>>> To: centos@centos.org
>>> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 9:42 AM
>>> Subject: [CentOS] Sorry
>>
>>> Sorry for the messed up replies.
On 05/16/2014 12:52 PM, joseph.spen...@netwolves.securence.com wrote:
>> From: Wes James
>> To: centos@centos.org
>> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 9:42 AM
>> Subject: [CentOS] Sorry
>
>> Sorry for the messed up replies. The web based icloud interface forces the
Joseph Spenner wrote:
>>From: Wes James
>
>>To: centos@centos.org
>>Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 9:42 AM
>>Subject: [CentOS] Sorry
>
>>
>>Sorry for the messed up replies. The web based icloud interface forces
>> the writer to reply at the top of the
>From: Wes James
>To: centos@centos.org
>Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 9:42 AM
>Subject: [CentOS] Sorry
>
>Sorry for the messed up replies. The web based icloud interface forces the
>writer to reply at the top of the email
>and if you try to write at the bottom by del
Sorry for the messed up replies. The web based icloud interface forces the
writer to reply at the top of the email and if you try to write at the bottom
by deleting a few lines of the message or selecting the whole message, deleting
it, adding some spaces and then pasting back and go to the end
Sorry to all if i sned varipous time the same mail thunderbird report me
that i didnt send it. like reindl that is angry and furious telling me that
im a idiot.
* there where FIVE replies to your post yesterday
* independent of what TB says, you got your own message from the list
* independent of
Sorry, wrong list! This is Lasso code.
- Jussi
On 17.10.2011 15.04, Jussi Hirvi wrote:
> This code:
>
> var('i') = string;
> boolean($i); '';
> var('i') = array;
> boolean($i); '';
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailma
subj
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
38 matches
Mail list logo
