Re: [Evolution] evolution-list Digest, Vol 129, Issue 10

[Patrick O'Callaghan <poc usb ve>]

On Fri, 2016-04-15 at 07:51 -0700, Brewster Gillett wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-04-15 at 13:27 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > However as I've said before, the justification for using Digest
> > mode on
> > lists has virtually disappeared. If at all possible people should
> > avoid
> > it. It belongs to the days of slow dial-up modems. I'm not saying
> > we
> > should eliminate it as there may be people who really do need it,
> > but
> > they are at most a very small minority.
> >
> > poc
>
> bg:
>
> Thank you for that concise and penetrating observation, Patrick. I've
> saved it to my file
> of sig-quotes :-)
>
> For those who might not be fully aware, Digest encourages three of
> the
> most obnoxious
> amongst clueless e-list behaviours;  top-posting,  failure to edit
> backquote, and failure
> to edit subject line to match the backquote's subject. Digest mode
> should have been strangled
> in its crib. I have asked many Digest users to supply a justification
> for their use, and when
> presented with the obvious counterarguments which *any* of those
> justifications are heir to, they 
> have no response beyond gaping like a gaffed grouper :-)

You forgot the most egregious one:

* Blindly replying to a digest without using the special MIME mode
breaks threading.

poc