On Sat 06 Jul 2019 at 11:16:19 (-0400), Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> (General observation: it's really quite annoying that you remove all > >> attribution when you quote previous emails in your replies.) > > It really is very annoying, primarily because it's intentional, and so > > intentionally annoying, which is really, really annoying. > > Interesting. I never read attributions so find them useless, and most > of the time my intention is to reply to the particular chunk of text > that I quote regardless of who wrote it. Furthermore in the rare cases > where it's important to know who wrote it, it should be trivial to > lookup the parents in the thread. > [ I do find myself having to look at the parents in a thread fairly > often, tho not to figure out who wrote it but in order to get more > context to better understand what was meant. ]
If you're reading this list from emails, and are trying to keep mailboxes at a reasonable size, then it might *not* be trivial to look up the thread. And that's the basis of netiquette: thinking of other people in the group. Hence, we don't top-post, try to quote sensibly sized extracts, respect quoting syntax conventions, and avoid breaking the Message-ID threading where possible, and so on. In a technical list like this, attributions help greatly in weighing the words of the contributions. Over a period, people build up a picture of the various contributors' expertise. (Sorry, but I have none.) Cheers, David.
