On Jan 15, 2019, at 1:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> By the way, have you changed and memorized all your passwords for this
> month yet?
No, I do not follow a predictable rhythm in changing passwords. Some change
frequently, some change infrequently.
I only remember my login password, my iDevic
On 1/15/19 8:03 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
> No disrespect intended to anyone at all, but the pissing and moaning about
> it is a massive waste of time and energy.
But, but, but...most water-cooler conversation is about sports, the
opposite sex, and pissing and moaning about what you don't like. Sure
> > Why must there be a hard rule about top posting?
It is my belief that whether to 'top post' or 'bottom post' may
largely depend on the characteristics of the medium.
In USENET, bottom posting was preferred because messages often
arrived out of order, and occasionally did not arrive at all, th
On 12/04/11 6:47 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
But I'm afraid times have changed; bottom-posted email is now an annoyance
to most just as a slow-loading web page would be.
Then you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to trim the original down
to ju
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 07:49:17 BST, Tim Chown said:
> Well indeed, top-posting is just so much more efficient given the
> volumes of email most of us probably see each day.
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129565913825601&w=2
Go read that thread. 115 messages and counting. Read *all* of them.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
> Well indeed, top-posting is just so much more efficient given the
>volumes of email most of us probably see each day.
That's true... if you're adding a trivial thought to an already concise thread.
If you're adding complex argument or informati
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 07:58 -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:17:54 +0100
> gord wrote:
> > I wasn't pedantic or impolite enough to suggest that it was off-topic
> > here (which, technically, it is), simply saying that it was doing my
>
> Actually, I don't think it is off-to
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:17:54 +0100
gord wrote:
> I wasn't pedantic or impolite enough to suggest that it was off-topic
> here (which, technically, it is), simply saying that it was doing my
Actually, I don't think it is off-topic. Meta-discussions about the
list are considered on-topic for the l
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 00:08 -0700, Michael DeMan wrote:
Rather it is more of a matter of how long it takes us humans to process the
incredible volume of information we are expected to process.
>
> I have no problem either 'top posting' or 'bottom posting' - but I agree it
> would be good for th
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 07:49:17 +0100
Tim Chown wrote:
>> Call me and old 'hard case' - but I prefer that when I get information
>> via email, that if possible, the relevant information show up
>> immediately.
Right. And the most relevant information is the snippet being replied
to in that email -
on 12.04.2011 08:45 Michael DeMan wrote:
> Generally what I see is that younger people who grew up using email
> when they were children desire to bottom post or post inline whereas
> folks that originally utilized email primarily to communicate
> technical information only generally prefer to top
Tim Chown wrote:
Well indeed, top-posting is just so much more efficient given the volumes of
email most of us probably see each day.
Top posting works in conversations you are having with someone, usually just one person, because you are aware of what's
been said.
If one comes into a conver
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Michael DeMan wrote:
The ultimate question on email etiquette is naturally how to properly
identify inline commentary.
It's not a problem.
Inline is done by trimming lines that are not needed and quoted text is
prefaced by a > sign. So if the email you're reading doesn't
I really don't think anybody is concerned about how fast the email downloads
anymore.
Rather it is more of a matter of how long it takes us humans to process the
incredible volume of information we are expected to process.
I have no problem either 'top posting' or 'bottom posting' - but I agree
On 12 Apr 2011, at 07:33, Michael DeMan wrote:
> Call me and old 'hard case' - but I prefer that when I get information via
> email, that if possible, the relevant information show up immediately.
>
> Call me lazy I guess - but I would expect that most folks on this list have
> also understood
Hi Paul,
Your point is taken - but actually this is a bit of a conundrum, at least for
me.
Generally what I see is that younger people who grew up using email when they
were children desire to bottom post or post inline whereas folks that
originally utilized email primarily to communicate tech
Call me and old 'hard case' - but I prefer that when I get information via
email, that if possible, the relevant information show up immediately.
Call me lazy I guess - but I would expect that most folks on this list have
also understood good user interface design, and that the least amount of w
I am top-posting to show that this entire thread is retarded.
I certainly could have bottom-posted, because I don't use Outlook for
this list, but the point here is -- is this what the NANOG list has
really become? Really?
So sad.
- ferg
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote
On Apr 12, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I have used Evolution and IMAP with exchange servers in the past, so, I'm not
> convinced this is an entirely accurate statement.
And in fact, I'm posting this message in plain-text via the OSX Mail.app
connected via native Exchange protocols
On Apr 11, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 4/11/2011 21:22, Richard Golodner wrote:
>> Too many Outlook users. With just about any other email client it is
>> very easy to bottom post.
>> To those who wish to post as they want demonstrates a certain something
>> about being
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"
>>
>>> --As of A
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 22:58:11 EDT, Bryan Fields said:
> The issue with outlook/exchange is there is no way to use another client with
> it. I cannot even force plain text to the internet, the server send it as
> quoted printable even if I strip all formatting.
If the entire body part is expressible
On Apr 11, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 4/11/2011 21:22, Richard Golodner wrote:
>>Too many Outlook users. With just about any other email client it is
>> very easy to bottom post.
>>To those who wish to post as they want demonstrates a certain something
>> about being a pro
On 4/11/2011 21:22, Richard Golodner wrote:
> Too many Outlook users. With just about any other email client it is
> very easy to bottom post.
> To those who wish to post as they want demonstrates a certain something
> about being a professional and an additional personality component
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:15:33 -, John Levine said:
> It's really impressive how insular a bunch of old timers can be.
>
> Coming up next: rants about HTML mail!
Vern Schryver once pointed out that a multipart/alternative with a
text/plain and text/html was *always* incorrect - if the semantic
On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 19:39 -0400, Daniel Staal wrote:
> Of late I have started to get responses from people (not even the
> person
> >> who top-posted) saying that I should f*** off and that they would
> post
> >> however they wanted. Very hostile and even threatening.
Too many Outlook use
interleaved posting is considered harmful.
/bill
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 08:05:51PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Daniel Staal"
>
> > --As of April 11, 2011 3:11:15 PM -0400, Jay Ashworth is alleged to
> > have said:
>
> Nope; I really said it. :-)
>
- Original Message -
> From: "Daniel Staal"
> --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
--As of April 11, 2011 3:11:15 PM -0400, Jay Ashworth is alleged to have
said:
Of late I have started to get responses from people (not even the person
who top-posted) saying that I should f*** off and that they would post
however they wanted. Very hostile and even threatening.
I even manage t
- Original Message -
> From: "John Levine"
> It's really impressive how insular a bunch of old timers can be.
>
> Coming up next: rants about HTML mail!
I never thought I'd say this about John, but PDFTT, folks. :-)
Cheers,
-- jra
- Original Message -
> From: "Kevin Oberman"
> Subject: Re: Top-posting
> Of late I have started to get responses from people (not even the person
> who top-posted) saying that I should f*** off and that they would post
> however they wanted. Very hostile and
It's really impressive how insular a bunch of old timers can be.
Coming up next: rants about HTML mail!
R's,
John
In article you write:
>On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> Of late I have started to get responses from people (not even the person
>> who top-posted) saying t
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> Of late I have started to get responses from people (not even the person
> who top-posted) saying that I should f*** off and that they would post
> however they wanted. Very hostile and even threatening.
My wife complained once that my respo
> From: "Michael Painter"
> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 23:11:44 -1000
>
> gord wrote:
> > I wonder if there's a filter for top-postings in list that have a
> > bottom-posting rule?
> > This thread is very operationally interesting to me but I've lost the
> > plot :(
> >
> > http://www.nanog.org/maili
34 matches
Mail list logo
