James Harkins <[email protected]> writes: > At Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:12:52 -0400, > [email protected] wrote: >> From: "Peter Gentry" >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: RE: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 118, Issue 12 >> Message-ID: <D7E7C26B9D38432DB3CDE99EAD7548F0@PeterVista> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Hmm I had thought it was clear... >snip< >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: ... >> >Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 5:01 PM >> >To: [email protected] >> >Subject: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 118, Issue 12 > > ... 667 (!!!) lines deleted > >> >End of lilypond-user Digest, Vol 118, Issue 12 >> >********************************************** > > Hi, > > Just a small mention of a mailing list pet peeve: lengthy, irrelevant > quotes. This list is usually pretty good about it, but here's one > where an entire digest was requoted, including several messages > completely unrelated to the topic: over 670 lines including headers.
The fun thing is that this full quote of the digest will, of course, end up in the next digest as well. If the probability of producing a digest fullquote per digest is significantly larger than 0, the list will become unreadable. In general, it is a bad idea to answer to a digest, just because of being able to associate answer with original article. It is better if you look up the article itself in the archives and answer to _that_ rather than to the digest. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
