Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:27:26 -0600 From: Tillman Hodgson <tillman@seekingfire.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Top posting Message-ID: <20040320162726.GI3884@seekingfire.com> In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040319222056.03ea2bd8@66.125.189.29> References: <20040319172130.GB2044@cs025_2k> <20040319174618.GH64130@keyslapper.org> <200403191428.24150.cmcmanis@mcmanis.com> <20040319223506.GA63254@bhunter.net> <20040319232459.GF3884@seekingfire.com> <6.0.0.22.2.20040319222056.03ea2bd8@66.125.189.29>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:41:14PM -0800, Chuck McManis wrote: > At 03:24 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote: > >Top-posting may be an opinion, but RFC 1855 makes it _standard_ opinion. > > Let's get serious for a minute here. Just because someone wrote up an > INFORMATIONAL RFC does NOT make it STANDARD. It makes it INFORMATIONAL. Big > difference. Go look up RFC 2026 for what it takes to become a standard. Absolutely. I'm very aware of the RFC process. But bottom-posting has been published as an RFC since Oct of 1995 and nobody has published any alternative since then. That doesn't make bottom posting *the* standard, it makes it a standard opinion (as no contrary opinions have been published). Of course, now that I've said that karma dictates that somebody is drafting up an alternative netiquette RFC at this very minute ;-) -T -- Draw bamboos for ten years, become a bamboo, then forget all about bamboos when you are drawing. Georges Duthuit
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040320162726.GI3884>