Re: Bottom posting v top posting

[Mark H. Wood]

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 09:52:23AM +1000, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
> My partner reads gmail on her phone or tablet. She reads my messages but does
> not realise that if she scrolls down she can see her message that I replying
> to. If I had bottom posting, she would never have read my message, thinking
> that some how she had got her email back again. The use of phones for email
> alters the game. It is time we gave up bottom posting!

You go right ahead and give it up, if you wish.

I have no interest in coddling people who use tools but can't be
bothered to learn how they work.

-- 
Mark H. Wood
Lead Technology Analyst

University Library
Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis
755 W. Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
317-274-0749
www.ulib.iupui.edu


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bottom posting v top posting

[Ben Oliver]

On 18-05-14 12:15:57, Mark H. Wood wrote:

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 07:15:46PM +0200, Martin Trautmann wrote:

Am 13. Mai 2018 17:12:14 MESZ schrieb tech-lists :
>No!! ;) and you're missing the point (IMOHO) :( basically, people
>quote back way too much. This is the issue. Most email apps allow
>threaded mail, so very little need to quote whole screeds.

IBTD. Major e-mail tools, such as outlook, failed to support proper threading. 
Writing on a smartphone here, I'm not even aware of an app with threading.


Heh.  When I want to do email via my phone, I SSH to where the mail is
and use Mutt.  It works very well, threading and all.

I haven't seen a phone-resident MUA or a webmail thingy that I would
choose to use if I had another way.  But a modern phone makes a nice
terminal.


This is a cool idea. I use K9 which has decent threading support. Mainly 
for reading rather than sending though.

Re: Bottom posting v top posting

[Mark H. Wood]

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 07:15:46PM +0200, Martin Trautmann wrote:
> Am 13. Mai 2018 17:12:14 MESZ schrieb tech-lists :
> >No!! ;) and you're missing the point (IMOHO) :( basically, people 
> >quote back way too much. This is the issue. Most email apps allow 
> >threaded mail, so very little need to quote whole screeds. 
> 
> IBTD. Major e-mail tools, such as outlook, failed to support proper 
> threading. Writing on a smartphone here, I'm not even aware of an app with 
> threading. 

Heh.  When I want to do email via my phone, I SSH to where the mail is
and use Mutt.  It works very well, threading and all.

I haven't seen a phone-resident MUA or a webmail thingy that I would
choose to use if I had another way.  But a modern phone makes a nice
terminal.

-- 
Mark H. Wood
Lead Technology Analyst, weirdo

University Library
Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis
755 W. Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
317-274-0749
www.ulib.iupui.edu


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bottom posting v top posting

[Akkana Peck]

Jon LaBadie writes:
> Another example of this: I typically bottom/in-line
> respond even private emails.  As most of you may
> note I have a lot of personal info in my standard
> signature.  Yet even people with whom I've had many
> exchanges will ask my address or phone number.

Some email clients, like gmail, hide the signature. To check,
I bounced your message to a gmail account I have, and sure enough,
it doesn't show the signature with the phone numbers. But I tried
another message where I deliberately top-posted, then added a
signature with "-- " before the quoted text, and it did show
that one. So it hides a signature if it's just a signature, but
shows it if there's quoted text after it (at least in my extensive
test of 2 samples and one webmail client).

But I agree most top-posters never read the quoted text even when
their mail client shows it to them. All that quoting is a complete
silly waste of space and bandwidth, except in one very special edge
case: the "You weren't CCed on this discussion, but you should have
been, adding you in now" case.

...Akkana