On 10/3/07, Jim Hartley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > clicking "Reply" does one of two things: either it marks everything > there and puts the cursor on a blank line at the top; > or it marks everything there and puts the cursor on a blank line at the > bottom. > > No, wait, I think there is a third option, I think you can set it to > include nothing from the mail you are replying to. >
There is a fourth option (Evolution): You get the cursor on the first line of the reply, which is also the first line of the reply-to message. You either start typing and worry about the spacing later, insert spacing and then type, or ^<end> and bottom post. I prefer bottom posting only because, if done properly, it gives a good chronological presentation of the issue, the new material is *easy* to find (it's at the bottom, duh! :-), and it ensures that asynchronously posted/received emails have some chronological sense to them. Caveat: "if done properly" means that all the fat is trimmed out, enough is left in to follow the thread, and it should all be done in plain text so that the indents and ">"s are in the right places. Interlaced responses can be handy when there is a LOT of material to cover and each point really needs its own response. Separate emails can explode too quickly in these cases, although they are generally better. OTOH, an email that contains massive numbers of separate issues is a poor post to lists like this one. Top posting is fine for general communications. However, when a technical discussion is involved, bottom posting is almost always better, *if* *done* *right*. IMNSHO, mhr --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
