I happen to agree with the draft, but either way it still makes more sense to put the cursor at the TOP of the message (even mutt does thus, gee...I wonder why) because putting it at the bottom makes it harder for people to reply to individual parts of the message separately... they'd have to scroll all the way to the top and then scroll all the way back down to the bottom as they answer each question.
it only ever makes sense to put the cursor at the bottom if you wanted to FORCE people into replying YOUR way (which not everyone agrees with) and if the only type of reply anyone EVER wanted to do was a summary reply to the whole message (which is clearly not the case). so even if I were to agree your way was better (which I don't), I'd still not change the code to put the cursor at the bottom. end-of-thread period. Jeff On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 12:20, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 20:53, Jason Tackaberry wrote: > > On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 20:16, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > > For more details, see: > > > http://www.globecom.net/ietf/draft/draft-bambenek-posting-guidelines-00.html > > > > That's pretty interesting. I didn't know such a document existed. :) I > > hardly ever post in "summary reply" form as the IETF draft suggests. > > The IETF draft referenced above was submitted by some random cluebie, > criticised harshly for contradicting current accepted practice, and has > now, thankfully, expired. > > It is not, was not, and will not be relevant except as an example of how > out of touch its author is with reality. See for example the discussion > archived at http://www.landfield.com/usefor/2002/Mar/0027.html > > If you must refer to Internet-Drafts despite them all saying 'It is > inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite > them other than as "work in progress."', then it would be better to > refer to a _current_ draft which reflects actual common practice, such > as http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-article-08.txt > > > My habit, developed from my BBS days, is to always quote inline (aka > > point-by-point reply) even if (such as in this case) I'm only quoting > > one thing. The reason is to immediately establish context. I don't > > think, as the IETF doc suggests, this detracts from the emphasis of my > > reply. > > Your habit is the accepted norm. See, for example, most of the hits from > the search: http://www.google.com/search?q=usenet+netiquette+top-posting > > The form known as 'summary reply' in the expired Iternet-Draft (sic) > referenced above, known normally as 'top-posting', is widely > acknowledged to be unacceptable in public fora, although between > consenting adults anything is of course permitted. > > > What are other people's feelings on this? > > I believe that Evolution should at least have an _option_ allowing > conformance to common Netiquette. > > Its failure to do so leads to something we've actually seen here -- > someone got criticised so harshly for top-posting to mailing lists > because her mail client placed the cursor in the wrong place that now > she reliably pages down _right_ to the end and places her replies there > -- below her .signature :) > > Coupled with an email client which correctly strips the signature from > the reply, this makes it really amusing to _reply_ to her replies :) > > A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. > Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
