Bob McConnell wrote on 23/12/2009 14:35:
From: Andy Shellam
And I was pointing out that this would not be a valid
test when there is a caching DNS on the LAN.
I also pointed out how to avoid caching issues - the
comment was aimed at the author of the message before mine.
Too much of the conversation and most of the attribution
was stripped too early for this to be coherent.
Why the negativity? A question was asked and several
possible solutions were provided based on that original
question. All the "conversation" was relevant IMO.
But long before it was done it was impossible to tell who had asked
which questions, who had provided which answers and who had countered
those answers. In several instances, replies appeared to be directed to
the wrong individuals.
Leaving the above for a reason. I find your answer to Andy rude and
offensive! Remind me not to try to help you next time.
Some people here tend to go way too far when trimming context from
replies. Yes, I know it gets difficult to read when there are more than
ten or twelve levels of attribution, but stripping all but the last
layer is even worse.
No, that's called netetiquette, have a look at:
Quote: "When responding to E-Mail, don't quote the entire original
message in your reply. Only quote the relevant parts, and only to the
extent that they will help orient the recipient on your reply."
(and this mail is not to start a flame war)
Removing the participants names from the top should
be a hanging offense. I don't keep copies of every message in any of the
dozens of mailing lists and news groups I follow, so there is no simple
way to go back through the conversation to figure out where it all came
Well, because _you_ don't wanna follow proper netetiquette doesn't mean
everyone else should violate those rules, does it? :-)
And a merry christmas to you.
Kim Emax - masterminds.dk
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php