On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 01:54:38PM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
> > BTW, why did this post show up in my inbox rather than in my
> > mutt folder? My procmailrc searches for "^TO.*mutt-users"..
>
> please explain why you use ".*" here.
Because whoever's procmailrc I copied when I was first learning
* Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-05 17:00:19 -0500]:
>This will be my last post about this topic. I am not gonna waste more
>time on this trivial issue, even if it is important to many of you.
Well, I've read quite a bit further down this thread before responding
to this message, and I m
Alas! Vikram Goyal spake thus:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 09:32:05PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> > 'set sig_on_top' is all I need. Just as Mutt user's manual says: 'It is
> > strongly recommended that you do not set this variable unless you really
> > know what you are doing, and are prepared to take s
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 09:32:05PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> 'set sig_on_top' is all I need. Just as Mutt user's manual says: 'It is
> strongly recommended that you do not set this variable unless you really
> know what you are doing, and are prepared to take some heat from
> netiquette guardians.',
* Sven Guckes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-06 13:54 +0200]:
> * Paul Brannan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-06 09:03]:
> > What part of the header should I be filtering on?
>
> using "TO" is fine.
In my experience, it's best to find a header set by the list processing
software and filter on that h
At 1:37 AM EDT on September 6 Paul Brannan sent off:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I disagree. While bottom posting is appropriate for most public forums
> (because discussions on these forums generally involve a point-by-point
> debate), there is a vali
On Fri, 06 Sep 2002, Paul Brannan wrote:
> folder? My procmailrc searches for "^TO.*mutt-users", but mutt-users
> doesn't seem to be anywhere in the headers (unless I missed it somehow).
Try this:
:0:
* ^TO_mutt-users@mutt\.org
mutt
:0:
* ^TO_mutt-users@gbnet\.net
mutt
:0:
* ^TO_mutt-announc
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-06 11:52]:
> > I also notice that neither list-reply nor group-reply works
> > with the post I am responding to; I had to paste mutt-users
> > into the Cc: line to reply to the list. Any ideas why?
>
> List reply ? there's a LIST REPLY ? Time fo
* Paul Brannan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-06 09:03]:
> if someone sends you a long email (and it is necessary
> and/or appropriate to quote the email or a large portion
> of it), then replying at the top saves the reader the
> time of scrolling to the bottom to find the reply.
so you top-post b
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 01:37:20AM -0400, Paul Brannan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Top posting sends the message "I am so much more important than all
> > several hundred of you others on this list that I don't care how much of
> > your time I wa
Paul, et al --
...and then Paul Brannan said...
%
% On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
% > Top posting sends the message "I am so much more important than all
...
% > Bottom posting says "I respect the others on this list and I will take a
...
%
% I disagree. Wh
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 10:10:31AM +0100, Sam Bashton wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 01:37:20AM -0400, Paul Brannan wrote:
> > BTW, why did this post show up in my inbox rather than in my mutt
> > folder? My procmailrc searches for "^TO.*mutt-users", but mutt-users
> > doesn't seem to be anywhe
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 01:37:20AM -0400, Paul Brannan wrote:
> BTW, why did this post show up in my inbox rather than in my mutt
> folder? My procmailrc searches for "^TO.*mutt-users", but mutt-users
> doesn't seem to be anywhere in the headers (unless I missed it somehow).
> What part of the he
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Top posting sends the message "I am so much more important than all
> several hundred of you others on this list that I don't care how much of
> your time I waste."
>
> Bottom posting says "I respect the others on this list and
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 05:00:19PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> This will be my last post about this topic. I am not gonna waste more
> time on this trivial issue, even if it is important to many of you.
>
> I do not know exactly how many people reply before quoted message but
> over 90% of my daily
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 06:01:48PM -0600, Peter T. Abplanalp wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > As for the manner on this group, you are correct. This group can
> > be a little rougher in its treatment of newbies than most others.
> > I'm not sure w
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As for the manner on this group, you are correct. This group can
> be a little rougher in its treatment of newbies than most others.
> I'm not sure why they think they have to be but its just the select few
> self-appointed/sel
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 05:00:19PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> This will be my last post about this topic. I am not gonna waste more
> time on this trivial issue, even if it is important to many of you.
Hi Bo,
One time, about, oh, twenty or so years ago I felt the same way you currently
do about top
On Thu, Sep 5, 2002, Bo Peng wrote:
> I do not know exactly how many people reply before quoted message but
> over 90% of my daily emails are in this style and I can see this kind of
> emails all over the Internet. Maybe they are all bad-mannered people,
> maybe they are all corrupted by M$, I fe
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 05:00:19PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> In this discussion, many replies are polite and informative but others
> are cynical and rude, even they are written in 'good style'. I can sit
> down and argue with you about compared to web, ftp, mp3, rm, how much
> bandwidth is used for
This will be my last post about this topic. I am not gonna waste more
time on this trivial issue, even if it is important to many of you.
I do not know exactly how many people reply before quoted message but
over 90% of my daily emails are in this style and I can see this kind of
emails all over
At 9:39 PM EDT on September 4 Bo Peng sent off:
> There is nothing wrong with either order. Nobody is 'corrupted' by
> anything.
Wrong. People are.
> Software as good as mutt should be neutral between these
> preferences, i.e. provides support for both styles.
No, good != neutral. Good soft
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 01:00:49PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> Are there good manners?
yes, there are. i am going to make an assumption here and
assume that english is not your first language (no slight
intended.) let's say you and two other people are talking,
one speaks your native language and t
Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I post an email, asking a simple question. What happened?
You ignored thirty years of netiquette and suggested it was okay to do so.
> Are there good manners?
Most of us still have them. You don't.
Charles
--
---
I post an email, asking a simple question. What happened?
I suppose that not only Will know the answer. However, I was defined as
a M$ follower, a corrupted newbie. I was then directed to a manner
class.
After I expressed my personal preference. I get more emails, not limited
to what you have
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-09-04 18:17:34 -0500:
> OK. I found the messages and I am not glad about those so-called rules.
Yes. Ah, so-called good manners. Such a useless junk!
> I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this has
> nothing to do with M$. It is natural (to
* Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-04 23:17]:
> OK. I found the messages and I am not glad about those so-called rules.
> I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and ..
> [unedited fullquote]
thankyou. that's certainly enough.
Sven
--
echo black_list [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 06:17:34PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
>
> OK. I found the messages and I am not glad about those so-called rules.
> I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text
A: Top posters
Q: What's the most annoying thing about email these days?
--
Jonathan Perkin - BBC Inte
Jussi Ekholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But please, remember to use correct signature delimiter ("-- ",
> that is "dash-dash-space")! O:-)
ITYM 'that is "dash-dash-space", dammit'.
Charles
--
---
Charles Cazabon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK. I found the messages and I am not glad about those so-called
> rules.
These so-called rules are called "netiquette". Heard of it?
> I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this
> has noth
'set sig_on_top' is all I need. Just as Mutt user's manual says: 'It is
strongly recommended that you do not set this variable unless you really
know what you are doing, and are prepared to take some heat from
netiquette guardians.', I was taught some lessons by the guardians. :-)
Thank you.
Bo
Bo Peng wrote:
>>> I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this
>>> has nothing to do with M$. It is natural (to me) to put important
>>> part (my reply) before non-important part (quote)
>> I understand your line of reasoning, but I think most people (if they
>> haven't b
* Bo Peng ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [05 Sep 2002 11:40]:
[...]
> I do not see anything wrong with quoting the whole message. It is a
> good reference if the reader need to read it or it can be ignored
> easily.
But I already have the previous messages. I can press P and read them. A
much better refere
The discussion has gone closely to personal attack. I might have
triggered some anti-M$ feelings. :-(
> > I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this has
> > nothing to do with M$. It is natural (to me) to put important part (my
> > reply) before non-important part (quote)
* Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09-04-02 18:22]:
>
> It is natural (to me) to put important part (my reply) before non-important
> part (quote)
If the quote isn't important, leave it out altogether. Notice how I didn't
quote all of the text of the original message? Notice how much easier to rea
* Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09-04-02 18:22]:
>
> OK. I found the messages and I am not glad about those so-called rules.
> I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this has
> nothing to do with M$. It is natural (to me) to put important part (my
> reply) before non-importan
At 7:17 PM EDT on September 4 Bo Peng sent off:
> I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this has
> nothing to do with M$. It is natural (to me) to put important part (my
> reply) before non-important part (quote)
I understand your line of reasoning, but I think most peop
OK. I found the messages and I am not glad about those so-called rules.
I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this has
nothing to do with M$. It is natural (to me) to put important part (my
reply) before non-important part (quote) and keep my signature closer to
the main bo
Bo Peng wrote:
> I am sorry but I could not find this message. Could you tell me its
> subject or date? Is it in mutt-user group?
>
> > This discussion (Message-ID 8gcg1a$qte$[EMAIL PROTECTED]) may
> > be helpful for you.
It's a message ID. Go search Google Groups for it; you'll get a 12
messag
I am sorry but I could not find this message. Could you tell me its
subject or date? Is it in mutt-user group?
Thanks.
Bo
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 08:16:12PM +0200, Heiko Heil wrote:
> * Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09/04/2002 18:01]:
> > Mutt automatically put the signature at the end of the ema
* Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09/04/2002 18:01]:
> Mutt automatically put the signature at the end of the email. Can I let
> it be put before the quoted text?
This discussion (Message-ID 8gcg1a$qte$[EMAIL PROTECTED]) may
be helpful for you.
--
Best regards
Heiko
# Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> / 2002-09-04 10:24:57 + (-0500):
> Hi, Everyone,
>
> Mutt automatically put the signature at the end of the email. Can I let
> it be put before the quoted text?
yes. use Outlook.
--
FreeBSD 4.6-STABLE
5:32PM up 14 days, 23:25, 8 users, load averages: 0.02
Hi, Everyone,
Mutt automatically put the signature at the end of the email. Can I let
it be put before the quoted text?
Thanks.
--
Bo Peng
Department of Statistics
Rice University
http://www.stat.rice.edu/~bpeng
Office: DH2076, (713) 348-2863
Corey --
...and then Corey G. said...
% On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 07:36:06AM -0400, Hall Stevenson wrote:
% > > >> By the way, where are you finding netiquette rules for email? I am
...
% > > >http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html .) As with most RFCs, this is
...
% > You're exactly right though.
On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 07:36:06AM -0400, Hall Stevenson wrote:
> > >> By the way, where are you finding netiquette rules for email? I am
> > >> curious.
> > >
> > >The standard reference is RFC 1855. (One place you can find this is
> > >http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html .) As with most RFC
* Corey G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Tue, May 23, 2000 at 07:30:23PM -0500)
> This is quite funny. You are explaining proper netiquette with a signature
> that contains "Fuck you". I guess netiquette and etiquette are not
> considered the same. :)
True.
My signature is just meant to bring a smile
> >> By the way, where are you finding netiquette rules for email? I am
> >> curious.
> >
> >The standard reference is RFC 1855. (One place you can find this is
> >http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html .) As with most RFCs, this is
>
> A much better reference is any standard book on good writin
Brian D. Winters proclaimed on mutt-users that:
>On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 07:30:23PM -0500, Corey G. wrote:
>> By the way, where are you finding netiquette rules for email? I am
>> curious.
>
>The standard reference is RFC 1855. (One place you can find this is
>http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.
On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 07:30:23PM -0500, Corey G. wrote:
> By the way, where are you finding netiquette rules for email? I am
> curious.
The standard reference is RFC 1855. (One place you can find this is
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html .) As with most RFCs, this is
rather long, and som
This is quite funny. You are explaining proper netiquette with a signature
that contains "Fuck you". I guess netiquette and etiquette are not
considered the same.:)
By the way, where are you finding netiquette rules for email? I am
curious.
n Tue, May 23, 2000 at 10:08:31AM +0200, Ge
* Corey G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000523 02:06]:
> Sounds fair enough.
According to proper netiquette
- your reply should FOLLOW the text you're replying to
putting the reply before the text is a M$ mailer induced braindeadism l)
- the signature belongs at the end of an email.
That's what signa
Corey G. [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> When I reply to an email my signature is getting placed at the very
> bottom of the email instead of at the end of my reply. Does anyone know
> of a way to change the location?
The bottom of the email *is* the end of your reply if you're replying
according t
Sounds fair enough.
Thanks.
On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 02:33:00AM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> Corey G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 22 May 2000:
> > When I reply to an email my signature is getting placed at the very
> > bottom of the email instead of at the end of my reply. Does anyone kn
Corey G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 22 May 2000:
> When I reply to an email my signature is getting placed at the very
> bottom of the email instead of at the end of my reply. Does anyone know
> of a way to change the location?
The signature belongs at the end of the email.
Warning: this
When I reply to an email my signature is getting placed at the very
bottom of the email instead of at the end of my reply. Does anyone know
of a way to change the location?
--
Best Regards,
Corey
55 matches
Mail list logo
