On 18 Sep 2014, at 17:54, Benny Kjær Nielsen wrote:
On 18 Sep 2014, at 14:42, Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
My company wants corporate email replied to in Outlook fashion :-(.
That is simply depressing. I cannot imagine the reasoning behind such
a strange requirement. I might be alone on this, but when I see this
quoting style then “competent professional” are not the first
words to cross my mind :-)
Actually, I find that the Outlook threading is better than I had feared.
It actually works pretty well for a "linear" thread like this one (the
one I'm responding to):
One person sends a message, another person replies, another person
replies to that, and so on -- the reply is always to the most recent
message.
When that happens, thanks to top-posting, you can just read the most
recent message. Either you read it bottom to top (very weird) in
chronological order (sane); or you read it top to bottom (sane) in
reverse chronological order (weird).
If there is a "fork" in this linear series of responses, then Outlook
shows you two messages, one for each fork. And you read the first one
top to bottom, then the second one till you reach a message that you
have seen before.
It's kinda similar to the "conversations" view that some email programs
offer. Only different :-)
I understand that mixing the different styles just gives weird results.
So I understand why the company doesn't want different people to use
different styles, because the mixture is worse than either style by
itself.
Kai
_______________________________________________
mailmate mailing list
mailmate@lists.freron.com
http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
