Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:34:16 -0800 From: "Lal Manavado" <manavado@frisurf.no> To: "Kevin Golding" <kevin@caomhin.demon.co.uk> Cc: <freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Top posting Message-ID: <005d01c2e6b5$f68e86c0$962f4382@tocom> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030226165246.00a8c770@pop.omah.uswest.net><NKCIBJDOKLMIHBAA@whowhere.com> <NKCIBJDOKLMIHBAA@whowhere.com><5.1.0.14.2.20030226165246.00a8c770@pop.omah.uswest.net><20030227005226.GC88122@wantadilla.lemis.com><5.1.0.14.2.20030227063629.00b24270@pop.omah.uswest.net> <qNp%2Bw3B7khX%2BEws%2B@caomhin.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hmm. Why not edit out the verbiage in the original, and put a brief and cogent response right at the end? Arn't we getting a trifle too wordy on this subject? Greeting! L. M. ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Golding <kevin@caomhin.demon.co.uk> To: WolfRyder <wolfryder@qwest.net> Cc: <freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 5:57 AM Subject: Re: Top posting > Someone, quite probably WolfRyder, once wrote: > >> >> If I'm interested enough to be following a thread, I'll have read > >> >> the whole original post to begin with. > >> > >> >And remember every detail? Sorry, I'm not that good. And I can't > >> >trust the person at the other end to know what I'm thinking. > >> > >For reference I keep the original post. What's one email as opposed to a > >bazillion? > > Unfortunately when dealing with high volumes that's not always > practical. I still have a lot of mail kept around for reference and > sometimes sorting through it can be a huge pain. Also given that this > is a mailing list there can be problems with propagation, see my quote > below. > > >Just stating my opinion. I've seen some web versions > >of 'netiquette' and perhaps an authoritative one can be written. But just > >like anything else in writing, people will find things that "agree with > >their point of view". > > Back in October 1995 RFC1855, AKA FYI28, appeared. RFCs are pretty > authoritative and about the closest thing the Internet has to > regulations. > > In terms of top/bottom posting I couldn't find an explicit comment, but > with a quick scan but I did find this one: > > - If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you > summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just > enough text of the original to give a context. This will make > sure readers understand when they start to read your response. > Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the > postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a > response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context > helps everyone. But do not include the entire original! > > Given that traditionally people interwove their replies it's pretty easy > to see the point though. It also mentions the propagation issue I > mentioned above. Maybe it's just that my interpretation fits in with my > view of the world. If you want to read the full document then a copy > can be found at <http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/fyi/fyi28.html>; > > It's true that most managers etc. don't read RFCs and they've started > doing things their way, but even if you top post everywhere else it's > probably fair to say that a group full of people who've been online > longer than most people have been using computers will be a little more > traditional. You don't have to post like everyone else but you'll fit > in a lot more if you do. > > Kevin > -- > kevin@caomhin.demon.co.uk > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?005d01c2e6b5$f68e86c0$962f4382>