In <4A5DF685.5090504@coat.com>, Dan Goodman wrote:
[H]aving been personally flamed for having done something similar recently, I am curious as to whether or not it (fullquoting when adding a short bottom-post) is really an issue to most people, or just to a couple.
If you message is more than 80% quoted text and attribution, you haven't trimmed enough. You should provide just enough context for users not to be confused about your meaning or the meaning of the quoted text. The older messages should have already been delivered to them and be available in the public archives. 80% is a guideline I heard somewhere and adopted, but it seems to work fairly well and is quite generous.
So why should we take the time to trim a relatively small bit of text?
You should do this because it is polite, and not everyone is "lucky" enough be using the same email setup you have. Plus, trimming shouldn't take significantly longer than reading the email again. We should cater to the varied needs of others on this list, since there are more of "them" then there are of "me". If I spend 30 seconds extra but it saves each reader of this list 1 second, the list as a whole has saved time. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ _/