Re: [Evolution] Problem with reply and other stuff (OT)
- From: "John Weber" <jweber math cudenver edu>
- To: "Evolution Mailing List" <evolution ximian com>
- Subject: Re: [Evolution] Problem with reply and other stuff (OT)
- Date: 21 Oct 2002 17:39:32 -0600
I've always liked top posting for summary replies. It's like
geology...if you want to know the past, then you dig down. Also, the
mail headers themselves are a series of top posts by the mail software.
Makes it all kind of harmonious. :) This is only my preference. I've
seen too many flame wars about this on newsgroups that don't end up
serving any purpose.
Signatures, I trim if I remember, but it seems less an issue if one top
posts because then you won't need to scroll through them unless you
forget the thread and need to reference down. If I point-by-point reply,
then I'm more likely to remember to trim unnecessary material from the
message body. I'd prefer the software to not strip the signatures.
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 13:53, Jason Tackaberry wrote:
On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 20:16, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
For more details, see:
That's pretty interesting. I didn't know such a document existed. :) I
hardly ever post in "summary reply" form as the IETF draft suggests. My
habit, developed from my BBS days, is to always quote inline (aka
point-by-point reply) even if (such as in this case) I'm only quoting
one thing. The reason is to immediately establish context. I don't
think, as the IETF doc suggests, this detracts from the emphasis of my
What are other people's feelings on this?
As for removing the signature from the QRT, I have sent a couple emails
where it was relevant to quote the person's signature. Every other time
I remove it manually, though. I guess it'd be more convenient to have
Evo strip the signature from the QRT, but I have mixed feelings that it
may be doing the wrong thing.
John S. Weber
jweber math cudenver edu
] [Thread Prev