----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Staal" <dst...@usa.net>
> --As of April 11, 2011 3:11:15 PM -0400, Jay Ashworth is alleged to > have said: Nope; I really said it. :-) > > Standard threaded (IE: not top-posted) replies have been the standard for > > technical mailing lists on the net since I first joined one. > > > > In 1983. Footnote: Maybe that was more Usenet, that early. :-) > > Anyone who has a problem with it can, in short, go bugger off. > > Really. > > --As for the rest, it is mine. > > I've found my mail has fallen into three basic categories over time: > > 1) Mailing list, technical or otherwise. > 2) Personal discussions. > 3) 'Official' work email, of one form or another. > > Of the three, #1 almost always is either bottom posted, or fully > intermixed. #2 I often introduce people to the idea, but once they get > it they like it. In both of these it is more important what is replying > to what, and what the *current state* of the conversation is. Either one > I can rely on the other participants to have the history (or at least > have access to it). Top-posting in either context is non-helpful. Well put. > #3, is always top-posted, and I've grown to like that in that context. > The most current post serves as a 'this is where we are right now, and > what needs to be done', while the rest tends to preserve the *entire* > history, including any parts I was not a part of initially. (For instance: A > user sends an email to their boss, who emails the helpdesk, who emails back > for clarification, and then forwards on that reply to me. At that point > it's often nice to know what the original issue was, or to be able to reach > the user directly instead of through several layers of intermediary.) I sorely hate to admit it, but you're right. I tried doing traditional quoting on emails in my last position (as IT director in a call center), and everyone else's heads came off and rolled around on the floor; my boss, the controller, actually *asked me to stop*. > It has different strengths and weaknesses, and can be useful in it's > place. Mailing lists are not top-posting's place. ;) We clearly agree, here. Hopefully, we've clarified the reasons why, for anyone who was on the fence. > (As for HTML email... I've yet to meet an actual human who routinely > used HTML-only emails. They are a sure sign of a marketing department's > involvement.) I have. No, not necessarily. Cheers, -- jra