=- Tony's unattended mail wrote on Tue 20.Nov'12 at 19:54:28 +0000 -= > Outlook actually illustrates my point. Good tools interpret the > mail-followup-to header, and also have a reply-to-list feature. > Outlook does not, on both counts. So mailing lists have > established conventions whereby everyone is expected to reply-all. > This means those with a more sophisticated tool chain > (mutt+procmail+fetchmail+postfix) must receive multiple copies of > post replies.
The same argumentation applies to producing "readable" mail: why fix something on the reader-end when it could/should be fixed at the source? > Same with line-wrapping. Because a readers tool is lousy at line > wrapping does not make a case for imposing line wrapping on > authors who use quality tools. Why is it OK to produce bad stuff and require others to improve it afterwards? > > Just follow the other sheeple and say "everybody does it." > > Proper etiquette is established by those in a region, or in a > group.. it's based on where you are. If you enter a village where > everyone does something, that *is* the etiquette, by definition. > To go against it is to lack etiquette. > > For some mailing lists, top-posting (as atrocious as it is), is the > proper etiquette. Now, initially _everyone_ of the few beginners of internet did it the "classic" (conforming) way. Then those disrespecting n/etiquette entered the internet... and declared their way as de-facto standard by "it serves my laziness and everybody does it: I and/or majority is right". -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.
