15 Apr
2002
15 Apr
'02
7:48 p.m.
From: John Foust <jfoust(a)threedee.com>
Unfortunately, I don't think Winston said
anything
about the inability to format e-mail responses
in conventional style, so we're stuck. "see below, plz."
now induces an immediate "CTRL/D" from my left hand.
Okay, so what is the *preferred* method of replying to classiccmp posts?
Reply at top? Replay at bottom? Or, embedded comments interspersed
throughout the replied-to post? I prefer the latter, more conversational
style . . .
Glen
0/0
15 Apr
15 Apr
8:20 p.m.
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Glen Goodwin wrote:
I concur with that, also I prefer doing a 'normal' "> " quoting of
the
text and 72 chars or so max width... not 50chars limit, not tabbed in from
the left, no HTML, no "----Original Message----" sh*t. Oh yea, and try to
properly use the shift key - not all caps, not all lowercase.
I know some people aren't great typists or use funky (eg. Outlook) email
clients, but to me it helps make the message much more readable.
Just my $0.02.
From: John
Foust <jfoust(a)threedee.com>
Unfortunately, I don't think Winston said
anything
about the inability to format e-mail responses
in conventional style, so we're stuck. "see below, plz."
now induces an immediate "CTRL/D" from my left hand.
Okay, so what is the *preferred* method of replying to classiccmp posts?
Reply at top? Replay at bottom? Or, embedded comments interspersed
throughout the replied-to post? I prefer the latter, more conversational
style . . . 
9:12 p.m.
> Unfortunately, I don't think Winston said
anything
> about the inability to format e-mail responses
> in conventional style, so we're stuck. "see below, plz."
> now induces an immediate "CTRL/D" from my left hand.
Okay, so what is the *preferred* method of replying to
classiccmp posts?
Reply at top? Replay at bottom? Or, embedded comments interspersed
throughout the replied-to post? I prefer the latter, more conversational
style . . .
I absolutly agree. Especialy with series of replys llike
we have the embedded style helps a lot. I considere the
'Top-Style' as rude.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
9:37 p.m.
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.
Hans Franke wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't think Winston
said anything
> about the inability to format e-mail responses
> in conventional style, so we're stuck. "see below, plz."
> now induces an immediate "CTRL/D" from my left hand.
Okay, so what is the *preferred* method of
replying to classiccmp posts?
Reply at top? Replay at bottom? Or, embedded comments interspersed
throughout the replied-to post? I prefer the latter, more conversational
style . . .
I absolutly agree. Especialy with series of replys llike
we have the embedded style helps a lot. I considere the
'Top-Style' as rude.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/ 
11:12 p.m.
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Marvin Johnston wrote:
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Hans Franke wrote:
Then I guess you will have to deal with people like myself reformatting
your emails when replying. I personally can't stand to see an email thread
with mostly proper quoting where someone replies at the top. Several email
lists I'm on have an enforced rule that email must be quoted and threaded
properly.
To date, all of the email etiquette information I've read states that a
reply should always follow the quoted text, with the authors' names at the
very top. Quotes should also be trimmed down, sometimes to just one
author's text. Any extra or unnecessary quoted text (including sigs)
should be removed to save bandwith.
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Glen Goodwin wrote:
I absolutly agree. Especialy with series of replys llike we have the
embedded style helps a lot. I considere the 'Top-Style' as rude.
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. From:
John Foust <jfoust(a)threedee.com>
Unfortunately, I don't think Winston said
anything
about the inability to format e-mail responses
in conventional style, so we're stuck. "see below, plz."
now induces an immediate "CTRL/D" from my left hand.
Okay, so what is the *preferred* method of replying to classiccmp
posts? Reply at top? Replay at bottom? Or, embedded comments
interspersed throughout the replied-to post? I prefer the latter,
more conversational style . . . It is especially annoying when the subject line
doesn't reflect the
message content ... which is most of the time.
If the subject of a thread changes significantly, the subject line should
be modified accordingly. A modified subject line should typically include
_at least_ 1/3-1/2 of the original subject line text, prefixed by 'was',
and surrounded by parentheses. The current subject line is a good example.
-Toth
16 Apr
16 Apr
8:19 a.m.
... and mixing these techniques tends to make things more difficult.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tothwolf" <tothwolf(a)concentric.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:12 AM
Subject: Re: OT email response format (was Re: TTL computing)
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Marvin Johnston wrote:
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Hans Franke wrote:
Then I guess you will have to deal with people like myself reformatting
your emails when replying. I personally can't stand to see an email thread
with mostly proper quoting where someone replies at the top. Several email
lists I'm on have an enforced rule that email must be quoted and threaded
properly.
To date, all of the email etiquette information I've read states that a
reply should always follow the quoted text, with the authors' names at the
very top. Quotes should also be trimmed down, sometimes to just one
author's text. Any extra or unnecessary quoted text (including sigs)
should be removed to save bandwith.
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Glen Goodwin wrote:
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. > From: John Foust
<jfoust(a)threedee.com>
> Unfortunately, I don't think Winston said anything
> about the inability to format e-mail responses
> in conventional style, so we're stuck. "see below, plz."
> now induces an immediate "CTRL/D" from my left hand.
Okay, so what is the *preferred* method of replying to classiccmp
posts? Reply at top? Replay at bottom? Or, embedded comments
interspersed throughout the replied-to post? I prefer the latter,
more conversational style . . .
I absolutly agree. Especialy with series of replys llike we have the
embedded style helps a lot. I considere the 'Top-Style' as rude. It is especially annoying when the subject line
doesn't reflect the
message content ... which is most of the time.
If the subject of a thread changes significantly, the subject line should
be modified accordingly. A modified subject line should typically include
_at least_ 1/3-1/2 of the original subject line text, prefixed by 'was',
and surrounded by parentheses. The current subject line is a good example.
-Toth
15 Apr
15 Apr
11:25 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Marvin Johnston once stated:
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.
But I get so much email (from this list, and others) that I *still* have
to scroll down to get the context anyway, and it just doesn't look right to
me to have the response at the top.
-spc (Ah, this looks much better to me 8-)
16 Apr
16 Apr
6:51 a.m.
Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
It was thus said that the Great Marvin Johnston once stated:
Okay, let me modify my statement. On short messages, the bottom or in
line is fine; on longer messages, then the top is appropriate. Since the
only purpose of quoting is to keep things in context, why not keep the
responses on the top where they can be read ... unless they are
specifically dealing with some points raised in the original quote. And
at least remove the extra garbage!
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.
But I get so much email (from this list, and others) that I *still* have
to scroll down to get the context anyway, and it just doesn't look right to
me to have the response at the top. 
8:01 a.m.
Quothe Marvin Johnston, from writings of Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 08:51:46AM -0700:
Okay, let me modify my statement. On short messages,
the bottom or in
line is fine; on longer messages, then the top is appropriate. Since the
No it isn't. Only those people new to using the 'net believe such
foolish nonsense. Trim as much text as possible out of messages that
are being replied to, and don't waste everyone's disk space, time
and bandwith by including needless quotes, such as entire long messages
or even entire threads, below the reply.
only purpose of quoting is to keep things in context,
why not keep the
responses on the top where they can be read ... unless they are
If you can't read responses unless they're on top, you need to begin
using different software. :-)
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
8:03 a.m.
Ignoring your flame bait, you need to realize that people have different
styles of writing/responding. I've only been online for about 20 years,
but "form over substance" is wrong regardless.
"R. D. Davis" wrote:
Quothe Marvin Johnston, from writings of Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 08:51:46AM -0700:
Okay, let me modify my statement. On short
messages, the bottom or in
line is fine; on longer messages, then the top is appropriate. Since the
No it isn't. Only those people new to using the 'net believe such
foolish nonsense. Trim as much text as possible out of messages that
are being replied to, and don't waste everyone's disk space, time
and bandwith by including needless quotes, such as entire long messages
or even entire threads, below the reply.
only purpose of quoting is to keep things in
context, why not keep the
responses on the top where they can be read ... unless they are
If you can't read responses unless they're on top, you need to begin
using different software. :-) 
4:08 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 368 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020417/43e92d8b/at…
2:11 a.m.
Aaargh - INCOMING!!!
Marvin Johnston [marvin(a)rain.org] said
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.
Enough said
Andy
2:55 a.m.
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Andy Holt wrote:
The old guard point out the RFC as justification for
their attitude - but
then it was written before the more modern tools became popular.
Define "popular." It's obviously not popular on this list. And,
unlike a lot of 733T H4x0Rz, I tend to agree with RFC/Netiquette
compliance just because it _is_ the standard.
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.
The implication there is that you can see the complexity coming in a
thread's infancy. Wow. You're way ahead of me, there.
Doc
3:21 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!
8:17 a.m.
With the title following the content, one might lose the association with the
prior thread. Putting the original message at the top and the reply at the
bottom has the problem you mention, and putting the reply at the top and the
quoted message at the bottom makes the thread hard to follow, particularly as
there are often forks in the discussion. Following them is often a problem in
itself, which, among others, Tony Duell handles at times by splitting his
replies based on the subject. Unfortunately, there's still no easy way to
track the context if the title is to serve a a pointer to the thread that
contained the original "fork" in the thread.
Embedding replies to individual points in the quoted post addresses these
problems to greater or lesser satisfaction, but requires quoting more of the
original text in order to bind the questions to the answers.
A change in the subject line would make it difficult to follow a prolific
thread by search. A search of all the messages for a given text string
produces too many hits on unrelated threads, since we all tend to use similar
phrases at times.
What's a guy to do?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marvin Johnston" <marvin(a)rain.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: OT email response format (was Re: TTL computing)
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.
Hans Franke wrote:
>
> > > Unfortunately, I don't think Winston said anything
> > > about the inability to format e-mail responses
> > > in conventional style, so we're stuck. "see below, plz."
> > > now induces an immediate "CTRL/D" from my left hand.
>
> > Okay, so what is the *preferred* method of replying to classiccmp posts?
> > Reply at top? Replay at bottom? Or, embedded comments interspersed
> > throughout the replied-to post? I prefer the latter, more
conversational
style . . .
I absolutly agree. Especialy with series of replys llike
we have the embedded style helps a lot. I considere the
'Top-Style' as rude.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
2:58 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 558 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020417/49082460/at…
4:18 a.m.
At 12:48 AM 4/16/2002 -0400, you wrote:
You did fine. :-) When I see the entire message quoted
(with headers) and no white space between the quoted
text and the new comments, my eyes glaze over.
If there's a relevant passage, quote it, comment on it
and be done with it. If you think for a moment there's a
need to quote the entire previous message, then erase it all
and begin pontificating. Don't do both.
- John
From: John
Foust <jfoust(a)threedee.com>
Unfortunately, I don't think Winston said
anything
about the inability to format e-mail responses
in conventional style, so we're stuck. "see below, plz."
now induces an immediate "CTRL/D" from my left hand.
Okay, so what is the *preferred* method of replying to classiccmp posts?
Reply at top? Replay at bottom? Or, embedded comments interspersed
throughout the replied-to post? I prefer the latter, more conversational
style . . . 
1:29 a.m.
I remember my old Blue Wave offline reader would admonish you if the
reply was more than 50% quote. I vary from top to bottom to interleaved
according to the message. The bottom line is whatever's the best to
communicate the message. Altho unlike this, I do prefer top quoting.
Lawrence
At 12:48 AM 4/16/2002 -0400, you wrote:
You did fine. :-) When I see the entire message quoted
(with headers) and no white space between the quoted
text and the new comments, my eyes glaze over.
If there's a relevant passage, quote it, comment on it
and be done with it. If you think for a moment there's a
need to quote the entire previous message, then erase it all
and begin pontificating. Don't do both.
- John
lgwalker(a)mts.net
bigwalk_ca(a)yahoo.com
From:
John Foust <jfoust(a)threedee.com>
Unfortunately, I don't think Winston said
anything
about the inability to format e-mail responses
in conventional style, so we're stuck. "see below, plz."
now induces an immediate "CTRL/D" from my left hand.
Okay, so what is the *preferred* method of replying to classiccmp posts?
Reply at top? Replay at bottom? Or, embedded comments interspersed
throughout the replied-to post? I prefer the latter, more conversational
style . . .
9:47 a.m.
The email handler I used back when I had a shell account always did that, IIRC
it was PINE, but ELM did that too. The mail handler before outlook express
but under internet explorer 3.x cautioned about largely quoted posts as well.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Walker" <lgwalker(a)mts.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: OT email response format (was Re: TTL computing)
I remember my old Blue Wave offline reader would
admonish you if the
reply was more than 50% quote. I vary from top to bottom to interleaved
according to the message. The bottom line is whatever's the best to
communicate the message. Altho unlike this, I do prefer top quoting.
Lawrence
At 12:48 AM 4/16/2002 -0400, you wrote:
You did fine. :-) When I see the entire message quoted
(with headers) and no white space between the quoted
text and the new comments, my eyes glaze over.
If there's a relevant passage, quote it, comment on it
and be done with it. If you think for a moment there's a
need to quote the entire previous message, then erase it all
and begin pontificating. Don't do both.
- John
lgwalker(a)mts.net
bigwalk_ca(a)yahoo.com
From:
John Foust <jfoust(a)threedee.com>
Unfortunately, I don't think Winston said
anything
about the inability to format e-mail responses
in conventional style, so we're stuck. "see below, plz."
now induces an immediate "CTRL/D" from my left hand.
Okay, so what is the *preferred* method of replying to classiccmp posts?
Reply at top? Replay at bottom? Or, embedded comments interspersed
throughout the replied-to post? I prefer the latter, more conversational
style . . .
2:09 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 396 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020417/ceb56769/at…
8129
days inactive
8130
days old
19 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
acme_ent＠bellsouth.net -
andyh＠andyh-rayleigh.freeserve.co.uk -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
lgwalker＠mts.net -
marvin＠rain.org -
pat＠cart-server.purdueriots.com -
rdd＠rddavis.org -
spc＠conman.org -
stanb＠dial.pipex.com -
tothwolf＠concentric.net