From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 18 23:44:50 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5B516A492 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:44:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pgiessel@mac.com) Received: from achilles.leela.ws (achilles.leela.ws [66.207.162.30]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C653B13C45D for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:44:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pgiessel@mac.com) Received: from [192.168.0.249] ([158.145.111.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by achilles.leela.ws (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0INimpl035287 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:44:48 -0900 (AKST) (envelope-from pgiessel@mac.com) Message-ID: <45B00669.5000007@mac.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:44:41 -0900 From: "Peter A. Giessel" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061207 Thunderbird/1.5.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Albrecht References: <04E232FDCD9FBE43857F7066CAD3C0F1267327@svmailmel.bytecraft.internal> <20070118231254.GA5405@wantadilla.lemis.com> <39ed86f90701181524x3c21c9f7sce09907f72a3f9c1@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <39ed86f90701181524x3c21c9f7sce09907f72a3f9c1@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions Subject: Re: Mail etiquette X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:44:51 -0000 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".