On 30 Nov 2003 at 0:28, D. Yates wrote: There's some general info on how to post to USENet out there and it should apply to mail lists, also. It really is worth reading. I got a bunch of hits from google and can't find the last one I read. It was written for a specific newsgroup or category of groups, but they pretty much all say the same thing. The one I read was more informative regarding headers, quoting, snipping and replying. I'll try to pass a little on. > Hey I really don't mind the "176 lines of remnants from previous > messages" so much. In fact, I really like it since it helps refresh > my memory about what was last posted on the subject. Sometimes it helps. It's best to read throught the thread to see if anyone's said the same thing already. Then, If you have a post you want to reply to, try to keep things in context. I'll try to give some examples below as I remember it from the USENet FAQs. First, notice that at the top, I've left in the header that tells who said what in the post I'm replying to. This will get quoted and the new header top posted if someone replies to this post. It leaves a heirachical trail of sorts. The unquoted header shows who wrote the stuff that's single quoted, a quoted header shows who wrote what's been double quoted, etc. My cursor ends up at the top, which is usually best since you're either going to reply to an e-mail and leave the original message intact or start off replying to specific content. There's been more than one top post recently that was ambiguous in meaning, (e.g. saying "I don't agree" or something like that in response to multiple opinions or assertions.) > But my memory Here I'd probably rag on D. Yates about how lousy his memory really is despite what he'd like to believe and I'd probably be wrong. OTOH, he just said above that his memory needs refreshing. Maybe he forgot :-) > isn't so far gone that I can't follow a quippy one-liner on a topic > I've been following, Possibly a good place for a top post, but not always. > and I'm (usually) not so lazy as to not bother > reading up on a topic in which I might post. As for the signatures, > it's always nice to see who says what. But the header will tell you that. Watch what happens to your signature if I put a reply right before it. The quotes will clue others in, but everything is only single quoted here, so it's easy to follow. Also, USENet news readers strip signature blocks as redundant info (if the signature is preceeded by a hyphen.) The info is already in the header, value added. > What really gets my goat is > other people making up arbitrary rules about what an ideal post looks > like. That's why I recommend reading a USENet posting FAQ. And the FAQ I read DOES mention deleting extra crap that can be found in previous posts, so I wouldn't call it an "arbitrary rule." I'd put my signature here and leaving yours below adds nothing. For now, I'm going to drop down a few lines to show how to snip out useless blabbering and info not needed to convey new info. I'll have to duplicate Olin's reply a few times so I have something to work with. SIGN > > ---------- > D. Yates > piclist@nerdulator.net > Another sign. ^^^^ > > -------- Original Message -------- "Original message, not. It should be a single quoted header stating that on some date at some time Olin said: why is all this in single quotes? > This is getting rediculous again. Your message contained 1 line of > new content and 176 lines of remnants from at least 7 previous > messages, including numerous irrelevant "signatures" and 21 lines of > completely content free old footers. > I snipped out the AD. You could say "snipped", "snipped useless blathering tripe", or use square brackets. The USENet FAQ uses the angle brackets IIRC. Here's how to snip out a chunk and a part of a line. IIRC, it's close, at least. The "[...]" shows that I tore into a new paragraph, sentence, thought, something llike that. It's not really neccesary, not does it add anything, IMHO, but that's what the FAQ said. The only problem with snpping is that some idiots like to snip out relevant parts of a post and attack something the poster said whereas leaving the snipped part alone would have clearly shown that there was no basis for the attack. [...} Your message contained 1 line of > new content and 176 lines of remnants from at least 7 previous > messages, including numerous irrelevant "signatures" and 21 lines of > completely content free old footers. > That's about it. BRs, Mike -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.