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

["John Weber" <jweber math cudenver edu>]

Hi,

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.

John

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:
> > http://www.globecom.net/ietf/draft/draft-bambenek-posting-guidelines-00.html
>
> 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
> reply.
>
> 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.
>
> Jason.
-- 
John S. Weber
jweber math cudenver edu
http://www.users.qwest.net/~weberjohns