I really don't think anybody is concerned about how fast the email downloads anymore.
Rather it is more of a matter of how long it takes us humans to process the incredible volume of information we are expected to process.
I have no problem either 'top posting' or 'bottom posting' - but I agree it would be good for the NaNog list to decide on a policy.
I say we all vote.
The ultimate question on email etiquette is naturally how to properly identify inline commentary.
Top-post is definitely the most efficient for that. For instance, if I have a lengthy correspondence with a peer who may or may not speed English, the top-post is always respected, and from there it is quite easy (because it is in the top) to note that other commentary is inline - and (as I mentioned before) - to remove unnecessary material while leaving short portions of material relevant.
To get back on topic about using email efficiently and get away from peoples personal preferences, I will say the following.
#1) I have no disagreement about whether to top-post or bottom-post on this list or any other - given that there is a policy in place. Maintaing communications is the most important thing.
#2) I still do not understand how 'bottom posters' reference material from prior e-mails in their replies? Perhaps I am just ignorant. I often have lengthy business and technical communications which some times require a bit of snipping here and there - the best way to notify somebody you have <SNIPPED> the prior conversation is to say it right up front?
#3) These kinds of things become even more important when working with non-native English speakers.
#4) I still seem to believe (maybe I am wrong) - that 'bottom posters' thing that an individual email to list is supposed to be an 'archive' - I wholly disagree.
Inline is done by trimming lines that are not needed and quoted text is prefaced by a > sign. So if the email you're reading doesn't have a few lines of > followed by text, the sender doesn't know how to properly quote/trim and answer inline and most of the time their text is not worth reading anyway.
Well indeed, top-posting is just so much more efficient given the volumes of email most of us probably see each day.
Top posting works in conversations you are having with someone, usually just one person, because you are aware of what's been said.
If one comes into a conversation with many people and reads the top post, there is no reference to what that applies to unless you've been following the conversation from the beginning.
I wonder if anyone actually took the time to read the relevant links on the NANOG page gord referred to?
Call me and old 'hard case' - but I prefer that when I get information
via email, that if possible, the relevant information show up
immediately.
Right. And the most relevant information is the snippet being replied
to in that email - or that part of the email.
Well indeed, top-posting is just so much more efficient given the
volumes of email most of us probably see each day.
Indeed. It lets us filter out people who don't understand the protocol
and probably have less useful information for us.
Back when receiving an email was an event, and your xbiff flag
popping up was a cause for excitement, taking time to scroll/page down
Back then we also trimmed the text so that we didn't have to page down
a few screens to see the reply. Then, like now, if someone can't be
bothered to compose a message properly I just move on.
Also back then we still read lots of messages. We just used Usenet
instead of email. Now that email has supplanted Usenet for many
discussion groups (a good thing IMHO) we get more mail. I find that
the amount of time spent reading discussions has been pretty steady
over the years. It's just the number of groups that has decreased as
has the medium.
The way I see it, I read many orders of magnitude more messages than I
send. That tells me that the bulk of the work involved should be in
composing. The work composing is multiplied by 1. The work reading
can be multiplied by many thousands.
changed; bottom-posted email is now an annoyance to most just as a
slow-loading web page would be.
It's only an annoyance if you try to repeat the entire thread in each
message. The basic rule is not "you must bottom post." It is "you
must trim and bottom post." For more detail we have archives.
Rather it is more of a matter of how long it takes us humans to process the incredible volume of information we are expected to process.
I have no problem either 'top posting' or 'bottom posting' - but I agree it would be good for the NaNog list to decide on a policy.
There is a policy already in place - in the NANOG General Mailing List Posting Convention. I linked to it when I first commented that I couldn't follow the flow about filtering ops for large-scale mail queues.
"Format
When posting to the NANOG list please avoid:
1. Top-posting, i.e., putting your reply right on top of the message you're responding to ....."
Pedants will note, before it causes yet another war, that I haven't quoted it with " > " because it is a body of text not a previous email contribution to the list.
Sadly, my initial observation in the thread has prompted 3 rather obnoxious off-list emails. Those ASs can now whistle if they expect anything from us, operationally or otherwise. Sad.
I found the thread particularly hard to follow once top-posting had started because I scan the NANOG list for operational issues and requests, not spamtools, so I was unfamiliar with some of the sales terms passed about, even though I have run BSD-based systems for several high-volume streams in a ISP environment myself.
I wasn't pedantic or impolite enough to suggest that it was off-topic here (which, technically, it is), simply saying that it was doing my head in (because of the top posting breaking the flow) to follow it all when I could only give it 10 seconds (max) per post.
Actually, I don't think it is off-topic. Meta-discussions about the
list are considered on-topic for the list. This is a discussion about
whether the rules for the list should be changed and so is on-topic.
I was referring to my initial post/comment that started all of this,
_that_ thread was technically off-topic when referring to software
methods, though that's largely irrelevant and I personally couldn't give
a hoot.
What I was originally saying was "I'm confused - this is a bottom-post
list by the list convention, but top-posting is happening to my
detriment"
Stepping back from it, I think I'll take a break from this for a weeks -
contact by phone/irc and noc@ only please. If you don't have the
numbers, well, tough.
Well indeed, top-posting is just so much more efficient given the
volumes of email most of us probably see each day.
That's true... if you're adding a trivial thought to an already concise thread.
If you're adding complex argument or information, or if the thread has
wandered into a wide topic, a top-posted message is often
incomprehensible. Without the context provided by posting inline, the
reader can't immediately tell what point or points you're responding
to.
That's why in lists like this one we intermix new thoughts with the
information they're responsive to. More, bottom-posting is just a
subset of inline posting in which we're only responding to one
element.
But I'm afraid times have changed; bottom-posted email is now an annoyance
to most just as a slow-loading web page would be.
Then you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to trim the original down
to just the context that clarifies your response. That's the other
problem with top-posters... nobody trims, so if I want to understand
what they're attempting to say I have to scroll down, read all the
previous messages and then guess which part they're replying to.
Usually the lazy top-poster hasn't said anything worth that much effort.
An even bigger problem is that the lazy top-poster often misses critical issues that either clarify the post they are replying to (making their reply irrelevant) or forgets to reply to something critical in the quoted text. I run into this often at $dayjob, where I can't ask more than one question in an email because the top-posted reply generally only addresses the first question.
The people who top post see this as a feature - they get their reply composed and sent off faster and can then move on to other things. They don't understand why they fail to thrive in their jobs as co-workers start to route discussions around them and then ultimately they are the first to be laid off because they aren't seen as an essential part of the team.
