Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:28:25 -0800 From: paul beard <paulbeard@gmail.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Out of order posting (was:: Load 0.20 on a freshly installed idle system) Message-ID: <CAMtcK2q45HyoS-R_dimcBx9apd8jUZgp5K2R=ymQTBwi=iGqsA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20230122174334.1e8b75ddc197472a4be3e33d@sohara.org> References: <CAGAKwcjmzz%2B6NMaK2YpjWZPB282RvrKV6zQ%2BSLHsDj3zqXwvGw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGAKwcgFWukBrB_6SZVAoC4YKyPVhVMGED4aB6Z4E1fwZAO6mg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFbbPuhyJDewvE_a6MQpiGrpUew7EtxZKwt_=RHODNUyCYNduw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGAKwcghHH5t1_dtWPkOCwxPvDra%2BmgNFTQsG65i1_7pzTDkug@mail.gmail.com> <CAFbbPujMDQgo=zvSc5orcT=v3ftrVPXDjZE-D%2BUxt3%2BdOjFmUA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGAKwcid8j3C28wiypO87X9HT9Wq8cfTNHWnOQvcQgAcWrFuLw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGAKwcgZz8gujtd8gPBoC5nKxE00q1Pau6%2BiOUjxBR-UMMNpKw@mail.gmail.com> <1889CB4C-4B11-4178-8446-97DA9E5EC35A@nimnet.asn.au> <CAFbbPui=uPmKoKYo2t2KaXu=yWUT%2Ba4wksqnwvCjJpBsaALcpQ@mail.gmail.com> <20230122060127.GB8068@eureka.lemis.com> <CAFbbPui=zc5-ERz06gr1nLFy_SWuOZ67ubvoKiT2kPSubHy7bw@mail.gmail.com> <CADqw_gJ3yJLTXJ%2B4pvrb22shoWAM=bvtfPe3d=rH-5DdVnd4-g@mail.gmail.com> <CAFbbPug0dpD4Qu9JL=d0n0jmSDTYH-ZWbsEvCVfxizuUJ%2BEdpw@mail.gmail.com> <20230122164001.2cbb15735780a9934989e951@sohara.org> <ad7b9db5-56a0-e450-c0fb-276ed7f5cfbd@safeport.com> <20230122174334.1e8b75ddc197472a4be3e33d@sohara.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--00000000000067e5df05f2de7353 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [context deliberately excised] This seems to be a perennial topic that also seems to be addressed by Postel's Law. Email has become a victim of its own success, with so many clients/MUAs adding their own "enhancements" along the way. I agree that interwoven replies with vigorous removal of unneeded text makes the most sense in terms of clarity (I can't recall in which of the several iterations of this debate this came up.) Given the ubiquity of gmail, making that change =E2= =80=94 making the reply text a quoted block where replies could be interwoven, rather than top-posting =E2=80=94 would make an enormous difference. But th= en we get into the long grass with de facto monopolies and whatnot. Maybe we could not treat this topic as the catnip it seems to be=E2=80=A6let it go, = no one will change their mind and no MUA will be rewritten to meet anyone's expectations. --00000000000067e5df05f2de7353 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"></div>[context deliberately excised]<br><= br>This seems to be a perennial topic that also seems to be addressed by Po= stel's Law.<br><br>Email has become a victim of its own success, with s= o many clients/MUAs adding their own "enhancements" along the way= . I agree that interwoven replies with vigorous removal of unneeded text ma= kes the most sense in terms of clarity (I can't recall in which of the = several iterations of this debate this came up.) Given the ubiquity of gmai= l, making that change =E2=80=94 making the reply text a quoted block where = replies could be interwoven, rather than top-posting =E2=80=94 would make a= n enormous difference. But then we get into the long grass with de facto mo= nopolies and whatnot. Maybe we could not treat this topic as the catnip it = seems to be=E2=80=A6let it go, no one will change their mind and no MUA wil= l be rewritten to meet anyone's expectations.<br></div> --00000000000067e5df05f2de7353--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAMtcK2q45HyoS-R_dimcBx9apd8jUZgp5K2R=ymQTBwi=iGqsA>