[EMAIL PROTECTED] to me:
> > I'm fully in favour of "quoted-line to new content" ratio moderation.
<>
> You do, of course, realize that sometimes a one-line "read THIS url" suffices?
Yes.
And two counter points:
1. Seldom is it close to "necessary" to quote great gobs of
preceding text to "
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:39:40 PDT, "Roy S. Rapoport" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> added about seven lines
Of course, sometimes it's nice to actually cite a *paragraph* so as to not
lose the context of the discussion. If the original text is of the form "3
lines about factor A" followed by "3 l
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 02:05:07PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> That's when you start seeing
> slash-dot style
> padding that's there
> just to make more
> new lines than original. Now I've got a 50/50 ratio. Barely.
In fact, the reason I included several links the other day about the kid
w
> Well, there's also such a thing as "editing the quoted text." You don't
> have to quote someone's entire email to say "read this URL."
I've been on many lists that implemented a "must-trim quoted text rule."
The best implementations I've seen haven't been those that force a
specific ratio. Wha
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 02:05:07PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I'm fully in favour of "quoted-line to new content" ratio moderation.
[...]
> You do, of course, realize that sometimes a one-line "read THIS url" suffices?
[filler deleted]
Well, there's also such a thing as "editing the quo
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:23:47 +1300, Nick FitzGerald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm fully in favour of "quoted-line to new content" ratio moderation.
> Simply bounce any message with more quoted lines than non-quoted, or
> whatever more or less harsh ratio you think is reasonable. Messages
>
PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:29 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Adminstrivia: Digest Limits/Netiquette
>
>
> A very interesting concept Nick. I am preparing to launch a
> list and am looking for ways to automate
ne 26, 2003 6:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Adminstrivia: Digest Limits/Netiquette
Len Rose wrote:
> We have increased the digest size again to 100K
> which is still somewhat small but it's growing
> thanks to those who still insist on quoting
> so mu
Len Rose wrote:
> We have increased the digest size again to 100K
> which is still somewhat small but it's growing
> thanks to those who still insist on quoting
> so much text (including the mailing list trailers,
> and complete signatures).
Yeah, and they're nearly all braindead top-posters to
We have increased the digest size again to 100K
which is still somewhat small but it's growing
thanks to those who still insist on quoting
so much text (including the mailing list trailers,
and complete signatures).
Please don't send 1 line replies to the list, send
them to the intended recipien
10 matches
Mail list logo
