provided by Chris Mason
earlier in this thread):
This example is occasionally used in mailing lists to mock and discourage
top-posting:
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying
Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
More precisely, it specifies that a response follow the text being responded
to and that you not quote text you are not responding to. A better term might
be interspersed bottom posting.
Good formal term. ;-)
The standard Internet posting style is to quote each
Synthesizing a compromise:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:42:02 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote:
Sorry, I use the web interface and I still hate (is that too strong a word)
top posting.
I naturally read from the top down and scrolling down, reading, then scrolling
up,
while scrolling down again to read
In
8693414129914945.wa.elardus.engelbrechtsita.co...@listserv.ua.edu,
on 07/30/2012
at 05:48 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za
said:
Just curious, while I agree 100% with what you wrote, where is
that standard written? I seem to recall that in a previous thread,
that
Might I request the luminaries of the list perhaps indulge those of us
unfortunate enough to be using the (severely crippled) web interface and *top
post* in replies ?.
That way we may get the gist of the response from mouse over without having
to select every post.
Yes, that is how bad things
Without laying claim to being one of the luminaries of the list, I
shall try to comply with this eminently reasonable request.
Is someone also addressing the web interface's apparently multiple
structural problems? If not, they will certainly worsen.
John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
On
While there is an RFC (I'm not going to hunt for the number on a Sunday)
that specifies that bottom posting is correct, as a reader I find
bottom posting to be hugely counterproductive. When reading a thread in
order, bottom posting requires the reader to scroll past what has
already been
Gord
According to the Wikipedia article on the topic, [1] the great benefit of
bottom posting is to present a chronological story. But in what sort of
environment? This makes sense when an e-mail sequence is being developed and -
crucially - the e-mail sequence is copied to folk who were not
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 11:32:19 -0400, Gord Tomlin wrote:
While there is an RFC (I'm not going to hunt for the number on a Sunday)
that specifies that bottom posting is correct, as a reader I find
bottom posting to be hugely counterproductive. When reading a thread in
order, bottom posting requires
don't; top posting makes it difficult to associate pieces of
the response with pieces of the original message.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2http://patriot.net/~shmuel
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your
In 50155783.2090...@actionsoftware.com, on 07/29/2012
at 11:32 AM, Gord Tomlin gt.ibm.li...@actionsoftware.com said:
While there is an RFC (I'm not going to hunt for the number on a
Sunday) that specifies that bottom posting is correct,
More precisely, it specifies that a response follow the
11 matches
Mail list logo
