/ Rado Q wrote on Tue 20.Nov'12 at 21:34:14 +0100 / > =- Tony's unattended mail wrote on Tue 20.Nov'12 at 19:54:28 +0000 -= > > > Outlook actually illustrates my point. Good tools interpret the > > mail-followup-to header, and also have a reply-to-list feature. > > Outlook does not, on both counts. So mailing lists have > > established conventions whereby everyone is expected to reply-all. > > This means those with a more sophisticated tool chain > > (mutt+procmail+fetchmail+postfix) must receive multiple copies of > > post replies. > > The same argumentation applies to producing "readable" mail: > why fix something on the reader-end when it could/should be fixed at > the source? > > > Same with line-wrapping. Because a readers tool is lousy at line > > wrapping does not make a case for imposing line wrapping on > > authors who use quality tools. > > Why is it OK to produce bad stuff and require others to improve it > afterwards? > > > > Just follow the other sheeple and say "everybody does it." > > > > Proper etiquette is established by those in a region, or in a > > group.. it's based on where you are. If you enter a village where > > everyone does something, that *is* the etiquette, by definition. > > To go against it is to lack etiquette. > > > > For some mailing lists, top-posting (as atrocious as it is), is the > > proper etiquette. > > Now, initially _everyone_ of the few beginners of internet did it > the "classic" (conforming) way. Then those disrespecting n/etiquette > entered the internet... and declared their way as de-facto standard > by "it serves my laziness and everybody does it: I and/or majority > is right".
I'm sorry but I receive the mails I send out from this list just as others do and I have no issue with readability using mutt or mail(1) for that matter, so I'm a bit confused why the text/narrative of my mail is causing so much of a problem for other mailing list readers. Jamie.
