Date   : Fri, 03 Aug 2001 11:30:27 +0000
From   : "W.H.Scholten" <wouter.scholten@...>
Subject: etiquette, quoting and stuff

L.S.

I'd like to summarise the quoting/etiquette business in this mail:

"Gary McCallum"

> If someone does put their reply at the top of a message leave them
> alone, it's not the end of the world and certainly isn't in any
> etiquette guide.

It's truly amazing that people will refer to etiquette and then suggest
something not in there or the complete opposite. FYI, from rfc 1855:

    - 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!

Note 'top of the message', and 'do not include the entire original'.

For more information: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

Furthermore, you've essentially not contributed anything (other than
your opinions) to the discussion or a way to end this subject matter
thus just prolonging the life of the etiquette/quote thread.


Greg Ewing <greg@...>

> I think it's criminal of email apps to include the original
> message at all by default, since it leads people straight
> into bad habits like that.

No it isn't. It's extremely easy to cut out what you don't need. It's
much less easy to copy/paste and then put '>' or something in front of
it (unless the mail client has a special function for it; which means
yet more bloat and for no real gain).


"Gray, David" <David.Gray@...>
> I've come back from holiday to find my mail box full of crap 

If your mailbox is 'full' from the BBC mailing list postings then you
clearly have never encountered situations where the reply-below-quote
becomes apparant as necessary, i.e. when you get lots of mail and it's
not obvious what some reply is in reply to (then you have to scroll down
to read a quote, scroll back up; ahumm, this is good? No). Nor have you
probably used usenet much for there it's quite common for someones reply
to arrive before you see an original... (see also the rfc passage
quoted).

> Yes we may learn from what is posted here but to be able to ask
> questions without the danger of sarcastic comments would be handy. 

Nobody's perfect and this happens just about everywhere.

> and the constant ranting about nothing in particular....jpgs tiffs I
> don't care as long as I can read it.

Obviously you don't understand what some of us are trying to accomplish.
If you're not interested in some mails, delete them, don't complain that
others shouldn't discuss the best way to store magazine scans, or
anything else they want to discuss that is in some way BBC related.

> now I think this is plain text but frankly I'm quietly hoping that it
> is stuffed full of something big and nasty so it take hours for you to
> download on your 9600 baud modems

Damn. Wasted my comments on a troll.

> Information in this email is confidential and may be privileged. 

To a mailing list. LOL.


Tim Fardell <tim.fardell@...>

> I tend to reply at the top, although I am aware this is technically
> "wrong". Beyond 2 or 3 bottom-posted replies, you have to scroll to
> see the reply, which is un-necessary for top-posts. 

No, but then you have to scroll down to see the original message, to
understand what the reply is about! As with others, you assume everyone
gets mails in chronological order and in light volume!

After reading the rfc, thinking about usenet, non-chronological mail
reception, high volume mail reception, you can now understand why the
following is correct (from Ben Newsam):

A: No.
Q: Can I post at the top?

Wouter