On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Peter McCracken wrote: > On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 21:09, Spundun Bhatt wrote: > > Another thing mentioned last time in a similar thread was top-posting. > > While I have harrassed the online community a lot with my top posted > > mails, I am trying to change that, is there any guidelines available for > > this? Sometimes I feel that if my message is starting on the second page > > of the mail, no-one is going to read it.
Spundun, If your message is starting on the second page, you probably need to trim the post you are replying to a little more thoroughly... > And perhaps someone could answer why bottom-posting is better, anyway? > I'll obey it, if that's etiquette. But I would have thought top posts > were easier to read. Peter, The recommended method replying is actually not strict bottom-posting. It is EDITED bottom posting, where you only keep enough of the previous message to keep the context obvious. I this particular case, I replied to two separate parts of the previous message. This keeps the context clear, and cuts down on bandwidth usage. The biggest problem with top-posting is that it tends to encourage the inclusion of the entire previous thread in each message. This is particularly bad if the message was from a message digest... The theory is that if your message makes sense without reading the included bits of the previous message, then you probably didn't need to include them at all. -- Craig West Ph: (416) 567-1491 | It's not a bug, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | It's a feature... -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
