On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 02:51:25AM +0200, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> <commentary>
>
> Unfortunately the Windows (or graphical? to avoid Windows-antibias)
> email clients don't quite follow this line of thinking in their editors.
> I can understand the logic that "your own text should be placed in front
> of the reply, because the person is not interested in seeing the
> original text, rather than your text" -- however why include the
> original message at all, in that case? The idea is to give a reference
> for your words (eg. if you say "I agree"). And for that, a
> point-reply-point-reply order is best.
>
> </discussion>
Mikko,
First let me say I agree with your premise and also believe that it is the
best way BUT there is some justification.
When in a business environment and you are having a discussion with person A
back and forth for some time. Then at some point you need to ask person B to
take care of something regarding the messages to person A. You reply to
person A's latest mail and Cc: B with the instructions.
Personally I hate the method because it assumes too much and person B almost
invariably is forced to email you to get more instructions or details. I
believe that people should be forced to write messages with the correct
details as they are currently. What I mean is that the email should contain
enough information to act on it. But Lotus Notes, Groupwise, and
Exchange/Outlook make the lazy way easy.
/Duncan
--
Duncan Watson ||| "Bit by bit, day by day, we are being seduced by
Unix Sysadmin at Large ||| politicians promising security as they take away
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ||| our sovereignty, promising prosperity as they gnaw
Portland, OR ||| away at our privacy," - Steve Forbes
PGP signature
