16 Apr
2002
16 Apr
'02
7:21 a.m.
Hi,
"Andy Holt" <andyh(a)andyh-rayleigh.freeserve.co.uk> said:
Aaargh - INCOMING!!!
Marvin Johnston [marvin(a)rain.org] said
I don't think modern v. old-style tools is the problem. I don't like top
posting because I have to scroll down the message to find out what it's
about, then scroll back up to see how the response relates to the original
message. My mailer (exmh) displays the top of the messages and it's no
help in this situation.
I disagree :). Too many times, a mile and a half
of quoted text starts
out the message. I don't care to take the time to scroll down, but
prefer to see the meat of what is being said at the top. It is
especially annoying when the subject line doesn't reflect the message
content ... which is most of the time.
So the regular argument now resurfaces on this list.
There is an irreconcilable disagreement between the "old-style" users who
got used to mailing lists with command-line tools for whom the bottom
posting is truly more convenient and the newer users of packages like
Outlook, Netscape, or other "web-style" tools which usually handle threading
quite well and always start by displaying the top of the message - these
users tend to prefer top posting.
The old guard point out the RFC as justification for their attitude - but
then it was written before the more modern tools became popular.
In complex cases bottom (interleaved) posting is
necessary, and I have used
that technique in this case (even though it is not really necessary) to
minimise the heat in the flame war.
I prefer the interleaved approach as it is more conversational, and all
the related information is kept (more-or-less) together. Like this. ;-)
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb(a)dial.pipex.com
The future was never like this!