Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:37:06 +0000 From: "Fintan Gaughan" <fgaughan@gmail.com> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: top posting (off-topic) Message-ID: <b346f5340711260137n460c15cat4912e432a5f20e3c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200711231112.lANBCW1P004569@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <b346f5340711230103u68567d76ta92ff68eb5310fcc@mail.gmail.com> <200711231112.lANBCW1P004569@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oliver , my post in between :-) On 23/11/2007, Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> wrote: > Fintan Gaughan wrote: > > Well i am top posting cos gmail says so :-) > > gmail does not force you to top-post. (If it did, I would > propose to ban gmail addresses from the mailing lists.) Go ahead , when replying it goes straight to the top.. how ever using greasemonkey enabled you are not forced to top post. > > > From what i have been told that news group you don't top post but in > > mail list such as this one its ok to top post. > > There's no such difference between news groups and mailing > lists, at least from a user perspective. To be honest using Mutt now that gmail enabled imap its much easier to post in between or bottom post. But when using gmail from web its easier to read top post. > In fact, I do read the FreeBSD mailing lists via an NNTP > gateway which stores them as news groups. I'm using a > newsreader client to read them (ports/news/tin) instead > of an email client. > > > Correct me if i am wrong but you can configure newsgroup reader to > > scroll to bottom or post where with email clients you have to scroll > > down to each one. > > I'm sorry but that's nonsense. It depends entirely on > the kind of client software you're using, and how it is > configured. It's _not_ a newsgroup vs. email thing. yes i agree with software using although i have never posted to a newsgroup using the website but i would be suprised the default is top post. > Apart from that, you're supposed to delete those parts > of the quote that are irrelevant to your reply. You > should keep only those parts that are required to > understand the context. If you adhere to that rule, > then the quoted text is small enough that having to > scroll down is not a real issue. > > Those people who do not top-post, but don't delete any > quoted text in a reasonable way either, aren't doing it > right either. Normally you should _not_ see multiple > pages of quoted text with tons of indentation. That's > almost as bad as top-posting. > > In ancient times, everybody was posting correctly (i.e. > with minimal but sufficient quoting, and writing the > reply below). I guess because it was the most natural > thing to do it that way, both for the person writing it > and for the people reading it. The problem with top- > posting started to appear when certain graphical clients > started to become widely used which put the cursor at > the top above the fully quote text, and users were too > lazy to move down, delete irrelevant parts of the quote > and write the answers below. Instead they just typed > their text right away and klicked the "send" button. > > For example, almost the entire full quote that you you > had below your reply was completely useless, confusing > and a waste of space and bandwidth. > > Best regards > Oliver > Fair enough Oliver, but to be honest it does not bother me anyway way, but how ever if there is a rule about top posting then i won't do it. But i am not going to lose sleep over this ... Fintan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b346f5340711260137n460c15cat4912e432a5f20e3c>