Some say that top-posting reverses the conversation, but if you
are thumbing through the archives of top-posted threads, each
contribution is on the first screen and you can navigate message
to message in time-order
Don't include the email you're responding to then it's no longer top
posting, plus you can still read the archive easily.
Bottom posting is just as bad as top posting when you include
the entire message
Usually there is no need to include previous emails, it's a waste of
space. The only time including the previous emails automatically is
good is when you want to see a previous conversation thread
before they included you. I see lots of information leakage from
Outlook users this way.
Is this done now?
As far as the HTML, I don't think I use it, but I fail to see why it's rude.
Next thread, red or blue text?
brandon
Hrm. Well, this is the way I see it.
(1) Short inline responses which provide context are useful for following a conversation.
(2) Anything longer than 1,000 words (including quotations) merits discussion outside of email, such as within a document or on a site which hosts threaded conversations.
(3) If it is about how far you can pee, go to the bathroom instead.
why.. do not filter/reject html mails? and end the endless discussions?
http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?&user=&passw=&list=GLOBAL&func=help&extra=configset_taboo_headers
bye
ingo flaschberger
geschaeftsleitung
Don't include the email you're responding to then it's no longer top
posting, plus you can still read the archive easily.
It would be nice if mailing list software added the archive URL to all
email forwarded. Then people could easily say
In http://lists.nanog.org/nanog/2007/01/03/314159.html you
wrote...
--Steve Bellovin, Steven M. Bellovin