From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 19 13:48:36 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E75D16A4CE for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:48:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C31743D4C for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:48:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rsidd@online.fr) Received: from user-12lcc9b.cable.mindspring.com ([69.86.49.43] helo=bluerondo) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1BxnHP-0002WM-00 for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 06:48:35 -0700 Received: (qmail 3151 invoked by uid 1002); 19 Aug 2004 13:48:40 -0000 Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:48:40 -0400 From: Rahul Siddharthan To: David Kelly Message-ID: <20040819134840.GA3104@online.fr> Mail-Followup-To: David Kelly , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org References: <41248C2F.8020401@quadspeed.com> <417F9703-F1DC-11D8-AE79-000393BB56F2@HiWAAY.net> <007001c485ec$9d3bbb10$3300a8c0@verizon.net> <9FDC1E28-F1E2-11D8-AE79-000393BB56F2@HiWAAY.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9FDC1E28-F1E2-11D8-AE79-000393BB56F2@HiWAAY.net> X-Operating-System: DragonFly 1.1-CURRENT i386 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why top-posting is bad X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:48:36 -0000 David Kelly said on Aug 19, 2004 at 08:21:05: > Providing an introduction to a forwarded message is about the only > acceptable time to top-post, as I am doing right now. Two observations: 1. While top-posting is bad in the mailing list context, it is often necessary in the corporate context. It took me a while to appreciate this, but it's much easier for a secretary or a customer support person to look through the bottom of an email for *all* related correspondence than to dig through (possibly weeks-old or months-old) email. You may have quoted what *you* think is "relevant", but maybe you unknowingly omitted something important, or maybe you didn't but the reader wants to be sure of that too. If you quoted everything, you may as well top-post, rather than force your reader to wade through pages of old stuff before getting to your point. Most people are used to email in the corporate context and thus used to top-posting. 2. Microsoft Outlook, which unfortunately a lot of people use, doesn't encourage quoting in-text: the "original message" isn't set off by ">" marks or anything else to indicate it wasn't something you wrote. (Perhaps this is a user-settable option, I don't know.) Stemming from these, while top-posting is annoying for old-timers on technical mailing lists, it's unfair to bash newcomers for it or to write "Top posters will not be shown the honor of a reply" (many may not even know what you mean by "top-posting"). A polite correction is better. If it bugs you so much, you can write a form letter and send that out each time, or a link to one of the numerous FAQs on the web. Rahul