Thanks for expressing your opinion. I am sure you think it is important. 
As for it's value to the rest of us, it is limited.

You repeatedly express the 'Fact' that top posting is wrong. In fact, 
you are sadly mistaken. While you, as an individual, may object to top 
posting there is in fact absolutely no 'standard' or 'right' or 'wrong' 
way to do it. There is not formal standard for top/bottom/interleaved 
replies, but, Wikipedia provides at least an objective 'discussion' of 
the alternatives.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

As far as I can tell, the only 'objectionable' thing to do is to clutter 
up mailing lists with complaints about top posting and bottom posting. 
It is asinine and immature.

For the record, next time, please bottom post so that I don't have to 
re-read stuff I wrote in order to find what your opinions are.

In any case, you added absolutely zero value in your response, in fact, 
you did worse than not add value, you added mis-information. So I 
believe the 'annoyingness' factor of having to read your reply, which 
just criticises me for trying to be helpful, was substantial.

To correct your mis-information: the site I linked to is not supposed to 
be an attack site.....   apparently, Vitaliy's site is an attack site, 
and the site I linked to gives some information as to why Google may 
think it is such. If you re-read my reply (which I put at the top of the 
mail so that it is convenient to find) you will see that indeed the link 
I put is not an attack site.... To quote what I said earlier (to Vitaliy):

Just for your records, when I click on your links (using Firefox), I get warnings that your site is a "Reported Attack Page!"



One last thing, before you continue in your quest on whining about 'the 
right way' to do things in mailing lists, you really, really, really 
should fix your mail systems so that you get your mail headers right.

After informing you years ago that you or your mail processing systems 
truncate the mail headers in mailes with header lines longer than about 
255 characters you have still not rectified your processes. I think your 
response at the time was... hang on, I'll dig it up... ah, yest, 
perfect.... This is a direct quote from you:

 From you, Olin, dated 7 July 2008:
==== quote =====

Perfectly standards compliant and a good idea are two different things.  I
know that my POP3 server apparently truncates lines at 256 characters, and
that is wrong.  The standard guarantees 1024 if I remember right, but
"encourages" more.  So to be truly standards compliant, a mailer would still
have to deal with paragraphs that are longer than 1024 characters and break
them up somehow.

Once again, whether the standard says you need to or not, to write email
that the broadest possible audience can reliably read, send it in plain
ASCII text with lines not exceeding 80 characters unless necessary (like a
long URL, for example).  You can be right or you can be effective.  Pick
one.

==== End Quote =====

So, you freely admit that you know your mail system is not compliant, 
and that you can be right or effective, and you chose (in your opinion) 
effective. The fact is, you are wrong, and you are happy with that....

Most recently, even today, your mail client produced the message with 
the headers:

Message-ID:<01b101cb0703$588b94b0$0300a8c0@main>
From: "Olin Lathrop"<olin_piclist@embedinc.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public."<piclist@mit.edu>
References:<AANLkTilCX1w8YawNTqiGdXEonUCfppOEfdR1IQEmXus6@mail.gmail.com><4C0CBBE4.4080602@radioway.org><AANLkTinYqdv0hflc4PRG3-gqwVS1yIQPqJecmX3Y_XLH@mail.gmail.com><005601cb0640$653421a0$0300a8c0@main>
	<AANLkTinRx_aC5gbo4AIxhnwuF_kKyiH_3TSTSnRmjcFB@mail
Subject: Re: [PIC] adc on usart
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:08:45 -0400


The 'References' Header in the above mail is incomplete because your 
mail client, or some other component in your mail system, has truncated 
it. Now, there really is a standard for e-mail, RFC2822, and it clearly 
states three relevant things:
1. The longest valid line of text in an e-mail is 998 characters plus 
the /r/n making a total of 1000 characters (see section 2.1.1 of 
RFC2822). For the convenience of some mail readers it is suggested that 
lines should not be longer than 78 characters (plus the /r/n).
2. If a header contains a large value this value may be 'folded' on 
multiple lines (section 2.2.3) by continuing the value on subsequen 
lines in the e-mail with the condition that these additional lines begin 
with whitespace (either tab \t or space ' '). This allows for 
arbitrarily large header values.
3. Specifically, the 'References' Header (as described in 3.6.4) is a 
'structured' header, and it *should* consist of one or more message ID's 
if the mail is a reply message.

Now, the message you sent above indicates that your mail software is not 
compliant with RFC2822. Specifically, it appears that it failed to 
process the unfolding of the References line of the message you replied 
to. But, more significantly, your message does not contain a list of 
valid Mail ID's as part of the References header, Specifically, the last 
content of your message is an incomplete mailid, thus indicating that 
your mail system is deficient.

So, When you sprout your opinions about the right and wrong way to 
compose e-mail messages, you may want to first consider that you are 
simply declaring your opinion as fact, and that it still remains just 
your opinion. But, further, your own mail systems are incapable of 
processing e-mails according to the very real, factual, and standardized 
RFC2822.

Your opinions about Electrical Engineering are based on experience and 
eduction that far exceeds mine, and I would never attempt to suggest you 
were wrong in such matters, but, when it comes to e-mail messages (and 
human interaction), I believe my qualifications are on at least a par 
with yours, and that, in the case of e-mail etiquette and standards, you 
are simply just plain wrong.

I believe I have pointed out your misunderstandings and 
misconfigurations of e-mail etiquette before, and I have previously gone 
to significant lengths to try to explain how your mail processing 
systems are failing, but, it seems that you need reminding that your 
track record of mail handling is abysmal.

Stick with what you know as fact.

Rolf

On 09/06/2010 10:21 AM, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Rolf wrote:
>    
>> Hi Vitaliy.
>>
>> Just for your records, when I click on your links (using Firefox), I
>> get warnings that your site is a "Reported Attack Page!"
>>
>> See this for what I mean:
>>
>> http://www.reportedattacksitehelp.com/
>>      
> Please next time don't top post.  If you hadn't, it would have been easy to
> include your quote of Vitaliy's links in this message.  The links Vitaliy
> posted were just JPG files, which I don't think can contain malware as they
> don't contain executable code or any kind of script.
>
> In any case, the site you referenced is not technically a attack site, but
> is long on hype and short on any real information other than trying to get
> you to buy the book they're selling.  Seems rather more annoying than any
> JPG to me.
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> (978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
>    

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist