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

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org>]

This is not a wonderful example. It's more an example of why Bob
shouldn't violate RFC1855 by including the _whole_ of the quoted message
when he didn't need to.

Often, someone presenting pages and pages of text related to a single
point will end it with a summary in a line or two, which is what should
be quoted. If not, it's normal to summarise it yourself. Bob should have
written:

        Bob's correspondent wrote:
        > <... lots ...>

        I agree with your arguments that the sky is pink and
        Usenet and email users haven't been shouting at top-posters for
        decades before this discussion.

        -- 
        Bob

If what they had to say can stand on its own, then they shouldn't have
included _any_ quoted text at all -- as you correctly point out, that's
what threading is for. 

If they need to quote a line or two from the previous message for
context, then it should be selectively chosen and used in the right
place, which is surely right next to the reply which refers to it?

I don't really understand what your method would have me do for this
mail that I'm composing now. I don't need to quote the whole of your
message; I only refer to some of it -- and RFC1855 explicitly tells me
not to quote all of it in this case. Would you have me place my own text
at the top of the mail, and include an edited version of _your_ mail at
the bottom, forcing you to guess which paragraphs of my own correspond
to which paragraphs of yours?

I agree 100% with this assertion. You are arguing for correct editing of
quotations according to RFC1855, not for or against the practice of
top-posting.

Yet I note that as soon as you actually need to respond to a mail
coherently you do fall back to the method which email and Usenet users
have accepted for decades, which is to quote selectively and place
replies to each point by the original.

On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 23:25, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
         <snip>
> example of why bottom posting is retarded:
> -------
> > this goes on
> > for many pages
> > of which nothing
> > that is said could
> > I possibly care about.
>
> I agree.
> -- Bob
>
> --------
        <snip>
> if people would instead top-post, then I could read what they had to say
> and if it wasn't enough to stand on it's own, I could refer below to see
> what it was about. or... for crying out loud, this is what message
> THREADING is for. I can go to the messages above in the thread.
>
> 99.99% of the time, when you are reading a thread...you already READ
> what the guy said before. why must you read it AGAIN just to see what
> the response was? it makes no sense at all.
>
> bottom-posting defies all logic.
>
> Jeff

-- 
dwmw2