The discussion has gone closely to personal attack. I might have triggered some anti-M$ feelings. :-(
> > I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this has > > nothing to do with M$. It is natural (to me) to put important part (my > > reply) before non-important part (quote) > I understand your line of reasoning, but I think most people (if they haven't > been corrupted by years of the other way) prefer a temporal ordering, i.e. old > stuff at top, new stuff at bottom. There is nothing wrong with either order. Nobody is 'corrupted' by anything. Software as good as mutt should be neutral between these preferences, i.e. provides support for both styles. > > This also makes an email easier to read if the quote is long. > The quote should not be long, and the biggest reason why so many UNIX types > hate M$ for promulgating the bottom quote style is that it encourages people to > attach entire threads at the bottom of each message, guaranteeing that noone > will ever read them. I do not see anything wrong with quoting the whole message. It is a good reference if the reader need to read it or it can be ignored easily. I do not think bandwidth is an issue too. The picture I sent yesterday would have cost the bandwidth of 1000 emails' quoted text. I will write a vim function to insert my signature. Bo
