Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:57:15 +0000 From: Kevin Golding <kevin@caomhin.demon.co.uk> To: WolfRyder <wolfryder@qwest.net> Cc: freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Top posting Message-ID: <qNp%2Bw3B7khX%2BEws%2B@caomhin.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030227063629.00b24270@pop.omah.uswest.net> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?qNp%2Bw3B7khX%2BEws%2B>