On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 10:28 -0600, Gustavo Seabra wrote: > 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! ---- I seem to recall you being the instigator of a set of 'rules' which apparently seems to empower some to brow beat others that don't follow your unofficial rules. yes, there has been a lot of bandwidth expended on this topic - the natural result is that nothing gets resolved. Craig
