Regarding the top-posting controversy: see my response under the next few paragraphs ... On or about Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:20:30AM -0500, Robert L Cochran wrote: > Top posting is used in a lot of mailing lists, numerous organizations, > and millions of individuals as routine. There just isn't the time to > fuss over the perfect placement of each and every word in an email. In a > large group of highly paid people, the preference is to accept the > default settings of the email client picked by the IT department, and > the default settings are for top posting. In the even larger group of > not so well paid people, the default settings of the email client are > accepted without question because that is The Way It Is. > > So top posting has an enormous installed client base. Top posting is > very much in favor in the world. > > I myself do what most people do: accept the default mail settings and > get my email out the door because I have other things to do with my life. > > Bob I generally sympathise with this. But the style I would advocate would be to put only a *brief* general summary of one's response at the top, then responses to individual paragraphs of the prior posting after each such paragraph. Having a summary or even a 1-line comment at the top really speeds going through a long mail list (this one has hundreds of postings a day!) This is especially the case for a complex response to a long posting, where there may be many paragraphs of responses interspersed with the quoted prior post. However, remember that many people may be responding to a posting - having the series of responses in a consistent order is very important, so that others may follow the sequence of responses. So there is a good reason for the usual convention on postings. (I myself have had problems with this at times, due to having to scroll down to find the mean of a particular posting in a series). And at least one of the web pages cited below suggests that one should preferably not quote ALL of the prior posting, but only the parts that are specifically being responded to (as well as whatever else is necessary to maintain the context). This is especially important in a busy list, since recipient's email folders will fill up very quickly (I just got a warning notice about this from my ISP, for example!). This also makes it easier for readers to find the response text. Also, when a response represents a change of subject (we're no longer talking about the original subject here, for example) one should change the subject line appropriately. 8=) Peter > > Alexander Dalloz wrote: > >Am Sa, den 10.01.2004 schrieb Technical um 05:06: > > > >>thanks but I am sure that there people out there that hate buttom > >>posting.... how am I going to please all > > > > > >There is a long practice in this and it exists some basic rules for > >posting to mailinglists, known under the name 'netiquette', making life > >easier for all. > > > >Please see and read > >http://www.axbom.se/writing/articles/mlnetiquette.php for some details. > >Another one on http://www.woodgate.org/FAQs/netiquette.html. And please > >respect it. > > > >Thank you. > > > >Alexander > > > >P.S. I know, it's a terrible fight against ignorance and lazyness. But > >do you a favour and think about the reason behind the netiquette rules. > > > > > > -- > Bob Cochran > Greenbelt, Maryland, USA > http://greenbeltcomputer.biz/ > > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
