Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:44:41 -0900 From: "Peter A. Giessel" <pgiessel@mac.com> To: Greg Albrecht <gregoryba@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Mail etiquette Message-ID: <45B00669.5000007@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <39ed86f90701181524x3c21c9f7sce09907f72a3f9c1@mail.gmail.com> References: <04E232FDCD9FBE43857F7066CAD3C0F1267327@svmailmel.bytecraft.internal> <20070118231254.GA5405@wantadilla.lemis.com> <39ed86f90701181524x3c21c9f7sce09907f72a3f9c1@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2007/01/18 14:24, Greg Albrecht seems to have typed: > threading of messages. this allows me to see each reply to a > message after the original message, in succession. i understand that > different people configure and use their email clients in different > ways, but why is there such a pandering towards one versus the other. I think the bigger problem is when a few people do it one way and everyone else does it another way. The consensus on this list has been time after time, "bottom-posting". Nothing is harder to read or interpret who said what than when a couple "top-posts" and everyone else "bottom-posts". Also, as Greg (groggy)'s e-mail demonstrates, "bottom-posting" fits well with the philosophy of answering each question one by one as you flow down the message. e.g.: > Question 1 Answer 1 > Question 2 Answer 2 This is not possible (or not as clear) with "top-posting".
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45B00669.5000007>