-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Bryen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [10-13-07 11:03]:
> On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 08:29 -0500, Billie Walsh wrote:
> > I, personally, like top posting.
> So do I, and I find myself taking a bit longer to respond because of
> bottom posting. But I can see it has its benefits.
:^)
> > Reply ONLY to the list.
> This actually is something of a challenge. Many of us by force of
> habit click "reply" and I keep having to stop myself before sending
> and re-doing the whole thing.
but, relative to the email proccess, you are NEW, as "in the
beginning" the expected action was *normal*.
> On other mailing lists, the system always changes the "reply-to"
> header to the actual mailing list. So when we click "reply", it won't
> reply directly to the person instead of the list. Can't we make that
> change here?
Not open for discussion/change. Has been debated ad infinitum here,
see the archives.
> It would probably make many lives easier. I know manmail does this
> because I've configured it as such to do so in the past.
explained above.
> > Trim down the quoted portion of the e-mail you are replying to.
> But doesn't this sort of defeat the purpose of bottom posting?
No, if you are current (you *are* reading the list?) there is no need
to continually *re-read* *old* context. The idea is to *only* quote
enough to put your answers into context.
> In effect, when we're trimming, we're creating a new thread.
no
> If the purpose of bottom posting is to give readers a chance to catch
> up on the conversation as a whole if they've stepped in late in the
> game, then they've missed the topic in its entirety when we clip.
no, it is not. That is why the archives exist.
> I just joined this list this week (and I love this list so far...) but
> there were ongoing conversations when I joined, and people trimmed down
> as suggested. Reading those posts, I had the feeling there was more to
> it than what I was reading in front of me.
again, if you were *current* this would not be a problem. Why impose
on readers who are "up-do-date" for *late-comers*?
> Not to mention, clearly the topic of this conversation is now different
> from the original topic of this conversation. How are we supposed to
> handle that? Retitle the subject?
yes, see the Subject: of this post.
BUT, if the context changes drastically into another direction or
topic (and this one has but...) a *new* thread/subject *should* be
started. Which means a brand new message, not a reply to an existing
message.
ex. All posts (except from particular *broken* clients) contain
"Message-ID:"s and replies "References:" and "In-Reply-To:" headers
which tie (thread) messages together. Your post to which I am
replying contains:
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This makes it possible for intelligent email clients to provide
threading, ie:
http://wahoo.no-ip.org/~pat/threading-example.jpg
> Just another newbie feeling my way around. :-)
Welcome aboard.
- --
Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711
http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn4472 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHEOU1ClSjbQz1U5oRAqyCAKCgbpiA41E69Qx4CsQUsZWL/oNkVwCcCXFi
cj06hVLfMzNRZsK5LLRFqyY=
=x6lt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
