I sincerely On Apr 11, 2011, at 5:12 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> interleaved posting is considered harmful. > Disagree. Owen > /bill > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 08:05:51PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Daniel Staal" <dst...@usa.net> >> >>> --As of April 11, 2011 3:11:15 PM -0400, Jay Ashworth is alleged to >>> have said: >> >> Nope; I really said it. :-) >> >>>> Standard threaded (IE: not top-posted) replies have been the standard for >>>> technical mailing lists on the net since I first joined one. >>>> >>>> In 1983. >> >> Footnote: Maybe that was more Usenet, that early. :-) >> >>>> Anyone who has a problem with it can, in short, go bugger off. >>>> Really. >>> >>> --As for the rest, it is mine. >>> >>> I've found my mail has fallen into three basic categories over time: >>> >>> 1) Mailing list, technical or otherwise. >>> 2) Personal discussions. >>> 3) 'Official' work email, of one form or another. >>> >>> Of the three, #1 almost always is either bottom posted, or fully >>> intermixed. #2 I often introduce people to the idea, but once they get >>> it they like it. In both of these it is more important what is replying >>> to what, and what the *current state* of the conversation is. Either one >>> I can rely on the other participants to have the history (or at least >>> have access to it). Top-posting in either context is non-helpful. >> >> Well put. >> >>> #3, is always top-posted, and I've grown to like that in that context. >>> The most current post serves as a 'this is where we are right now, and >>> what needs to be done', while the rest tends to preserve the *entire* >>> history, including any parts I was not a part of initially. (For instance: A >>> user sends an email to their boss, who emails the helpdesk, who emails back >>> for clarification, and then forwards on that reply to me. At that point >>> it's often nice to know what the original issue was, or to be able to reach >>> the user directly instead of through several layers of intermediary.) >> >> I sorely hate to admit it, but you're right. I tried doing traditional >> quoting on emails in my last position (as IT director in a call center), >> and everyone else's heads came off and rolled around on the floor; my boss, >> the controller, actually *asked me to stop*. >> >>> It has different strengths and weaknesses, and can be useful in it's >>> place. Mailing lists are not top-posting's place. ;) >> >> We clearly agree, here. Hopefully, we've clarified the reasons why, >> for anyone who was on the fence. >> >>> (As for HTML email... I've yet to meet an actual human who routinely >>> used HTML-only emails. They are a sure sign of a marketing department's >>> involvement.) >> >> I have. No, not necessarily. >> >> Cheers, >> -- jra
