Hi Ken/Willem-Jan, Though in the past, it was considered "proper" netiquette to reply BELOW the post, it has become a standard today to reply above it. It allows for people to find and read the reply easily (instead of having to scroll down), and it also allows some email programs with a preview to, well, preview the reply. Personally, having been on the Internet since 1984, I prefer seeing replies on the top, or even intermixed in.
I have no problem with long posts being "filtered", but I'd suggest there be no penalty assessed for replying on the top. It is a standard today, replying on the bottom, though considered "proper" in a past life, I believe is now not "required". Regards, Austin > >But I do notice that you are (again) a prime example of excessive > >quoting, due to reverse-quoting, so I suspect many of your bounces > >are triggered by that....;)) > > Well, I will try to correct this, although I thought I was selective > in my quoting, but am not clear which way is "reverse." I just > reviewed several dozen posts by various people and they seem to be > coming through regardless if their new text is before or after the > quoted text. Is this really why mine are bouncing? And is there > some cut-off amount as to how much text can be quoted before it > starts to bounce? I really want to solve this. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
