Re: [Evolution] Problem with reply and other stuff (OT)


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

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]