Bo Peng wrote: >>> I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this >>> has nothing to do with M$. It is natural (to me) to put important >>> part (my reply) before non-important part (quote) >> I understand your line of reasoning, but I think most people (if they >> haven't been corrupted by years of the other way) prefer a temporal >> ordering, i.e. old stuff at top, new stuff at bottom. > There is nothing wrong with either order. Nobody is 'corrupted' by > anything. Software as good as mutt should be neutral between these > preferences, i.e. provides support for both styles.
It *does* support both styles.... set sig_on_top And even M$ knows it's bad to top post or fullquote: http://www.jsiinc.com/newsgroup_document.htm >>> 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. Fullquoting is extremely rude... especially on a discussion list, since people looking through the archives have to look through mounds and mounds of fullquoted messages. I would much rather have someone top post than full quote, but I find that most of the time, the two go together. -- Will Yardley input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >
