The argument you made in support for top-posting and which is reproduced below, is one I cannot corroborate. Taking you up on your claim that doctors place information in a most-recently-used order, I can say that I have never witnessed my doctor attempting to top-post today's findings somewhere on the paper slip above yesterday's findings, for that would mean yesterday's notes would have to start near the end of the page to even have sufficient space to do the top-posting in the first place. Anyway... This very e-mail of mine uses top-posting, and with it, I mean to demonstrate that top-posting itself is not the problem, it is how people formulate their reply. Readers of my first paragraph will no doubt find that, despite having not been presented with a quote of your statements in the first screenful, they get an idea of what I am replying to. It is not even all that special of a technique; it is commonly applied in paper-based exchanges (still a thing! even for lawyers.) But what am I to expect of today's populace who know nothing but instant messaging. On Wednesday 2021-09-15 00:46, L A Walsh wrote:
That's why people start top posting, to make sure the important stuff is read first with a longer and longer untrimmed history being kept below. Doctors & Lawyers, among the highest paid professionals always put the most recent stuff on top to save time.
On 2021/09/14 11:43, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 14/09/2021 19.53, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On 14.09.2021 19:33, L A Walsh wrote:
=========================================== On 2021/09/14 01:08, Per Jessen wrote:
There are three conditions to be met for such a mail to be rejected:
if "subject matches regex" and "list is factory" and "sender is not dimstar" then reject.
So just changing 'T' to 'F' in Fumbleweed would allow it, ...or adding a space at the end, ...or using an alt for the listname (would have to investigate that, but it seemed like one of them worked), ...or putting dimstar's email address in the From line ...or...probably many others...
And before anyone says any of those would not be ethical or a good thing to do This is actually what you are supposed to do in this case - change subject to describe the reason you reply and trim content to leave only relevant packages.
And remember, L A, that this filter was enacted because the replies to these posts (New Tumbleweed snapshot...) were a big annoyance.
We could have a long thread with subject "New Tumbleweed snapshot..." talking about foo broken package, instead of changing the subject to "Foo package is broken (in this release ###)". And worse, there were posts with just 3 lines of text, but containing the 100 kilobytes of the release text as quoted material.
As people kept forgetting to trim the quotes and change the subject, it was asked from the mail admins to block the replies.