On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:04:28 -0500, Gene Heskett
<gene.heskett@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 March 2005 15:53, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Phil Labonte wrote:
> >> To quote the Wikipedia definition:
> >> "Top-posting is considered improper by some OLDER DEFINITIONS of
> >> Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread:"
> >>
> >> It's time to embrace change, change is good. Top posting gis here
> >> to stay especially because of GMAIL and outlook...
> >
> >jeezus, can we just start two lists for every fedora-related topic?
> >one list will be for clueful people who don't top post, who don't
> > post in HTML, who properly trim their posts and who don't have
> > 30-line idiotic, company-mandated sigs whose only purpose is to
> > justify their corporate lawyers' existence.
> >
> >the other list will be for the annoying, clueless twits who think
> >linux mailing list behaviour should be mandated by what freakin'
> >outlook does.
> >
> >rday
>
> Finally, a solution to the problem that might actually work. ;-)
>
> Unforch, the mail server would have to translate the To: address
> according to whether or not the message contained top-posting I'd
> think, because we'ed otherwise fail at convincing said twits to use
> the right list.
>
> That shouldn't be too hard to code up in a bash script I'd think.
>
Better yet: instead of creating a second list, return the
top-posted/html e-mail to the sender (refusing to distribute) and
explaining the reason why.
Is it REALLY a possible thing to do? That would save a lot of time and
bandwidth!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Seabra Graduate Student
Chemistry Dept. Kansas State University
Registered Linux user number 381680
------------------------------------------------------------------
If at first you don't succeed...
...skydiving is not for you.
