On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:27:23AM -0500, Peter Davis wrote: > However, I also recognize that mutt is, to a large extent, obsolete. > Of course it still appeals to those who cling to the text/plain, > 72-characters-per-line limit model from the 1970's, but that > audience is a smaller and smaller percentage of the email-using > population. I don't have any data, but given the prevalence of > email, I suspect that mutt users make up a minuscule portion of > that.
There is some truth to what you say. However the fact is, conversational quoting is vastly more efficient FOR THE READER than top posting, almost invariably, and statistically your mail has more readers than authors, guaranteed. So where is the efficiency? Lines with lengths of 80 or so characters are more efficient for the reader to process, as has been shown by various studies. To solve the problem your way, you need to invent a mail client that automatically understands what the author's intent is, and precisely which point the author is responding to, and understand the author's language sufficiently to automatically effectively quote and reformat the e-mail regardless of how the author writes it, which I daresay is impossible, at least at the moment. Until it is possible, teaching users to be considerate regarding their recipients and how to write e-mails for maximally effective and efficient communication is your ONLY OPTION. So yes, spending time on this periodically on the list is both worthwhile and on-topic. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
pgpxgRv6sv62B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
