On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:54:58 -0400 Jeffrey Laramie wrote:

Another thing people are complaining about is top posting. That means that you write your comments at the top of the page and quote the previous posts below it. It's easier to read if you quote the previous post at the top and make your comments below it ...

Top posting is a religious issue. Since people are ready to explain why it is discouraged, let me mention where I find it appropriate: First off, when a post contributes separate text for MULTIPLE items, it makes no sense to have the "answers" before the "questions". Here, comments __should__ follow the quotes from the previous post. But what about a post that contributes only a single block of text? Published guidelines on posting seem to disregard the existence of the previous post - their instruction is to first read the quoted text, then read the contributed text. I find this bothersome - it forces me to "get past" the quoted text before I can find out what __THIS__ post has to say. It is this "scroll that message" that top posting (of a single block) frees me from having to go through. Why don't I *always* want to view that quote from the previous post? Because its text was typically posted today or yesterday, and I still remember what it said. Besides, the mail/news software I use keeps msgs (both read and unread) in sequence within threads -- so it is trivial for me to go back and read the whole previous post, if I wish. This "greater ease" of top posting (with a single block) is borne out on many non-technical mailing lists (on which top posting is customary). I can simply step message by message and follow the discussion by reading immediately from the top of each message - without having to first scroll WITHIN that message. It's a real effort-smoother for me. mikus

On Wednesday 13 October 2004 15:24, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:54:58 -0400 Jeffrey Laramie wrote:

...

Another thing people are complaining about is top posting. That means that you write your comments at the top of the page and quote the previous posts below it. It's easier to read if you quote the previous post at the top and make your comments below it ...

Top posting is a religious issue. Since people are ready to explain why it is discouraged, let me mention where I find it appropriate:

Yeah, I see your points. This is not a religious issue for me personally but I know it is for some on this list (and some other lists too). Same thing with snippage. My personal rule of thumb is to always write below the quote but I usually don't quote at all unless on a technical list or I need the quote for context. Best Wishes, Jeff

Randall wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] RE: Has performance been forgotten?' on Wed, Oct 13 at 16:41:

Top posting is not evil. Posting style is a pragmatic issue, not a dogmatic one. What's right is what allows the writer to most effectively and efficiently communicate with the readers.

If Randall says it's not evil, that's proof enough for me that it *is* evil. :) --Danny

* Mikus Grinbergs [10-13-04 16:02]:

But what about a post that contributes only a single block of text? Published guidelines on posting seem to disregard the existence of the previous post - their instruction is to first read the quoted text, then read the contributed text. I find this bothersome - it forces me to "get past" the quoted text before I can find out what __THIS__ post has to say. It is this "scroll that message" that top posting (of a single block) frees me from having to go through.

No, I bet to differ. "Published guidelines on posting" advise trimming the quoted mat'l, leaving only enough to keep the subject/question in context. This *would* allay the perceived problem of having to "xcroll that message" to "get past" the quoted text. I am sure that you should not have to "scroll" to read my response, unless you employe a *very* diminutive screen or your mail client has a very small text area. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos

On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 14:24 -0500, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:

But what about a post that contributes only a single block of text? Published guidelines on posting seem to disregard the existence of the previous post - their instruction is to first read the quoted text, then read the contributed text. I find this bothersome - it forces me to "get past" the quoted text before I can find out what __THIS__ post has to say. It is this "scroll that message" that top posting (of a single block) frees me from having to go through.

This is why bottom posting should never be used alone. Pure bottom posting is just as bad as top posting. The method that makes sense to me is a combination of bottom posting and logical editing (cutting out stuff that is not important) Another thing is that on an active thread that single block of text will not stay single for long, because if someone then replies to your top-posted reply, the single block suddenly find itself in the middle of things, screwing up the flow. It will only work if the first block does not include something that is of relevance to the third poster. How many mails have you seen where the third and fourth person to respond on a thread relates to both previous levels in the thread.

Why don't I *always* want to view that quote from the previous post? Because its text was typically posted today or yesterday, and I still remember what it said. Besides, the mail/news software I use keeps msgs (both read and unread) in sequence within threads -- so it is trivial for me to go back and read the whole previous post, if I wish.

This method works if you read mail as they arrive (or close to it) and if you can manage to keep track of all the threads you are following in your mind. This also works in conversational or social lists where the mail does not include technical or business data that is still worth something in 2 years. I have also found that in many cases I only start to follow a thread somewhere in the middle (like this one). I get waaay too much mail to read each one, so i scan the subjects and spot-read a few to see if there are something interesting in. In such cases it makes it very difficult to pick up the thread if it is not logically written. Have you tried to search mailing list archives for some solution and then try and follow a top-posted thread, or one that does not contain a reference to what is answered on. It is very frustrating. Same with business related mails. I have had to go through my personal archives on many occasions to search for mails that were writen a few years ago. Then you need to scroll up and down, up and down to try and follow the conversation. What makes is worse is when it is lengthy responses that refer to previous responses. I scroll down to see what they are referring to and then I need to search back to the point I was reading. - horrible waste of time. To me it is plain logical. I normally don't wear my pants on my head as it does not make a lot of sense to do it in the long run. It might be comfortable and quite funny while I am in the house, but as soon as I go outside, my butt start to freeze and then I have to try and get my pants off my head an onto my butt while trying to get to the car. If I have put my pants on the way that makes sense in the first place, then I would not have trouble getting to work on time... It is logical. It makes sense. (Most of the time anyway) -- Andre Truter | Software Engineer | Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 | AIM: trusoftzaf | http://www.trusoft.co.za ~ "Oh Bother!" said the Borg, "We assimilated the Pooh!" ~

After my new adventure into Mutt Land, I was wondering, I'm looking over Muttrc, and I don't see anything for threads. I'd like too be able too have all the threads on this Mailing list show up in threads so the ones with the same topic and the replies too it could be in one area. Do I have too add something into Muttrc myself? Or is it already there and I missed it? I'd like too thank the people who helped me out and gave good avice, it's much appreciated, and I haven't TOUCHED another Mail Client since. the only time I really used any other client anyway was too send E-Mail because I wasn't sure how too in Mutt, and now I can. Haven't even loaded X on this box yet in 5 days. Been lots of fun, and I've got a Console open with my Muttrc in it so I can play with it when I have a minute from my homework and other things. It's quite addicting. Just wondering if I add something too Muttrc for this, or is there an option already there that I may have missed? Thanks.

* Leendert Meyer [10-14-04 03:18]: ...

But it seems a bit clumsy to remove a few headers first, there must be an easier way. Isn't there a 'New message' function in mutt that also fills in the 'To:'-field and sets it (in this case) to suse-linux-e@suse.com?

It's 'L' in mutt and called list-reply, but you must have set the 'subscribe' command entered in muttrc with a regex for suse-linux-e@suse.com. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos

On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 09:37 -0500, Danny Sauer wrote:

Bahram wrote regarding '[SLE] RE: Has performance been forgotten?' on Wed, Oct 13 at 08:47:

...

other than your usual way! Can you please describe in details that what annoying problem was with my posts?

More info can be found by searching google (or any www search engine) for "netiquette". This type of mailing list should follow netiquette guidelines for usenet, most of the time.

Danny's explanation of top posting and cleaning up responses is the best I have seen in a long time. There is an RFC for netiquette (RFC1855) http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt -- Andre Truter | Software Engineer | Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 | AIM: trusoftzaf | http://www.trusoft.co.za ~ "Oh Bother!" said the Borg, "We assimilated the Pooh!" ~