Rolf wrote:
> Aha.... so, you relent and do inline posting, how novel.....

"Relent" is a strange word since I always do inline posting, with trimming
of course.  You should try it some time.  It would make your posts easier to
understand since there is just enough context above what you say to make
sense of it, but not so much that there is excessive stuff to wade thru.

Perhaps you thought I was advocating bottom posting, but if so, you need to
read what I said again.  Top posting is the most disliked by the most
people.  Bottom posting is only a little better, especially without
trimming.  Inline posting is the easiest to read by far.  It only takes a
little extra effort.  After you do it a bit it just comes naturally.

> To quote you again:
>
> I think it's my POP3 server that's doing it.  However, I have no use
> for the references header so fixing this has a priority of about -2
> on a scale of 0 to 10.

Another "standard" you might try is to mark quoted text with leading ">" or
something to make it visually obvious.  Most mail clients do this
automatically.  Even the ancient OE I'm using now does it.

> Well, this just goes to show you how narrow-minded you are about this
> particular issue. If you were not so 'antiquated' in the way you use
> e-mail you would discover that most mail clients (including Outlook)
> do a remarkable job of 'threading' e-mail 'conversations'.

So everyone who doesn't prefer a threaded view is narrow minded and
antiquated?

> 1. If you thread e-mails then top posting is 'great' because the
> 'context' information you need is right there in your thread.

Only in those cases where previous messages are kept and you happen to be
viewing the conversation in a threaded display.  Even then you can't see
which individual points are being replied to.  Since threaded viewing can
sometimes break and is certainly far from universal, doesn't it make sense
that providing just enough context so that each message largely stands by
itself is the best all around method?

Basically you are advocating a system that requires a threaded view to make
sense, and then only partially.  That's rather narrow minded.

> 2. to comprehensively 'thread' an e-mail exchange the 'References'
> header is used, and, since your references header is often broken,
> your messages 'break' the threaded nature of conversations....

Stuff gets mangled.  If threading is that fragile, even the more reason not
to assume everyone will view a message in thread context.  By the way, the
piclist.com server seems to put my message in the right place in the right
threads.  Obviously the information is there, so it sounds like the real
problem is that you're relying on something unreliable.

> Your attitude is 'I want bottom posting' so I will 'reprimand' anyone
> who top posts..... but, people with threaded mail clients be damned
> because "I don't care".

In line posting works for everyone, whether they view a message within a
thread or not.


********************************************************************
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