I don't know, I've got hundreds of e-mails in little
google-mail-style-threads that were received in perfect order. Since the
technology has progressed so far where that really isn't a problem (except
perhaps in rare circumstances), then there's definitely no reason why bottom
posting is better than top posting, or vice versa. :)
On 6/23/06, Carl Lowenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/23/06, Nicholas Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been using Linux for over seven years and, until this list, I've
never
> heard anyone complaining about top-posting vs bottom-posting. I think
it's
> silly to think one way is right -- regardless of your preference of
client.
> The purpose of having a 'subject' line is to inform the reader of the
e-mail
> what the subject of the e-mail is about, so some people are capable of
> remembering the last things written, and could therefore get right to
the
> point and read the new information, while other people less capable of
> remembering the last things written have to scroll down to remember what
is
> written. Then they complain that this is an inconvenience. If the person
had
> bottom-posted, then everyone would have to scroll down equally.
The bottom-post algorithm originated when networks were a lot slower
than they are now. Messages were not always received in the sequence
in which they were sent, and it made a lot of sense to remind the
reader as to what the reply pertained to.
This has nothing to do with the capability of people to remember the
last things written. Even today, messages are not always received in
the order that they are written.
carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
--
Nicholas Wheeler
Systems Administrator
Development InfoStructure
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
