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

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org>]

On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 20:53, 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. 

The IETF draft referenced above was submitted by some random cluebie,
criticised harshly for contradicting current accepted practice, and has
now, thankfully, expired.

It is not, was not, and will not be relevant except as an example of how
out of touch its author is with reality. See for example the discussion
archived at http://www.landfield.com/usefor/2002/Mar/0027.html

If you must refer to Internet-Drafts despite them all saying 'It is
inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite
them other than as "work in progress."', then it would be better to
refer to a _current_ draft which reflects actual common practice, such
as http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-article-08.txt

> 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.

Your habit is the accepted norm. See, for example, most of the hits from
the search: http://www.google.com/search?q=usenet+netiquette+top-posting

The form known as 'summary reply' in the expired Iternet-Draft (sic)
referenced above, known normally as 'top-posting', is widely
acknowledged to be unacceptable in public fora, although between
consenting adults anything is of course permitted.

> What are other people's feelings on this?

I believe that Evolution should at least have an _option_ allowing
conformance to common Netiquette.

Its failure to do so leads to something we've actually seen here --
someone got criticised so harshly for top-posting to mailing lists
because her mail client placed the cursor in the wrong place that now
she reliably pages down _right_ to the end and places her replies there
-- below her .signature :)

Coupled with an email client which correctly strips the signature from
the reply, this makes it really amusing to _reply_ to her replies :)

A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

-- 
dwmw2