On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:23:58 +0000 Came this utterance fomulated by Witstert to my mailbox:
> Hi Henri & Michael, > > Admonishment accepted and noted. Apparent subject change is not > applicable as I deliberately chose that sequence of emailed responses > as an example. I beg to differ. Subject change is relevant because the topic you raised is different to the original subject which you quoted. You have an issue with email, nothing to do with the original post even though you were using it as an example. > When I download emails from this forum I receive every > email that is generated relative to each original cry for help > including my own. It is still not 100% clear if you are talking about emails quoted within emails or individual emails. For the former, it is normal practise of the mail client to leave the original quoted material in place and up to individuals to trim non-essential text. Top posting actually makes individuals less likely to trim text. For the later, that would be something with your mail client or ISP as none of the rest of us are getting that. > Hence, I have seen complaints accompanied by requests for > "unsubscription" resulting from the bombardment of emails. Not everyone is comfortable with 100 emails a day, but i can assure you this is actually a moderate volume email list. Due to the high newbie ratio, the rules of engagement are somewhat more relaxed than high volume lists. > It is also > my complaint but I do not see "unsubscribing" as a cure except on a > personal basis. It may be a reason why some users do not register and > receive a "direct" response. As I see it the solution is: 1. Set up a > proper web-site based users forum still requiring registration and > requiring moderation Which already exists, and you are welcome to use it instead. > 2. configure the current system to download the latest ONLY of each > email subject inclusive of responses received. Not possible. If you filter out all quoted text then it can be hard to identify what each person is talking about. This email i am writing would not make sense if your points that i am addressing did not get through. > For example, in my latest download of emails (headers only) there were > several emails for each subject so before downloading the content I > deleted what I hope is the excess being earlier timed (received) > emails with the same subject headers. In doing so there is a danger > that I have lost some interesting information. > This is correct. If you thread emails correctly you will see that the threads can fork like branches on a tree, due to people replying to a specific point raised by a specific earlier post. Therefore it is the last email of each branch that in your reckoning method would hold the most useful information. But to download only these emails truly does reduce the amount of potentially useful information. I think i have your issue now. It is definately the responsibility of those replying to trim excess quoting from the reply. Use this example here to see how correctly interleaved replies can enhance the reading experience. Note i have also snipped outdated info from the bottom of the post. As i mentioned above it is top posting of replies that is the main culprit when it comes to inline quoted material. When replying at the top you are actually disincentived to scroll down and delete unwanted outdated information. As i said before asking that the server remove this information would actually reduce legibility. In the case of this email (my reply to you) it would no longer make sense at all. Interleaving relies on being able to address each point as it occurs. By the way, top posting is a standard business practise. Not because it is best, but because most business employees have never learned better, nor feel they should change, and see no reason to learn better techniques when they are following the main trend sheep-like. Some are even convinced it is the better method. Unfortunately the practise can promote misunderstandings when the topic changes even subtly. I received a forwarded email at work last month which asked me to "action as discussed - following". The original topic was not what they wanted me to action, but half of the relevant stuff had been discussed on the phone so the recent posts where very cryptic when applied to the original topic. I could have taken some of the early bullet points and actioned based on those and my time would have been wasted. I did however take the time to reply and ask exactly what was being asked for. After being admonished for not keeping up, i pointed out how the request was not clear. Upshot was i was squeaky clean, but with someone who now sees me as difficult, or perhaps an enemy, because they lost a day and a half due to poor communication. HTH -- Michael All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well - Julian of Norwich 1342 - 1416 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
