[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [OT] Top Posting Mandatory?! (was: RES: URGENT - errors onboot)

> Of the two messages from Brian and T. Ribrock, I found Brian's easier
> and
> faster to read and digest, because...
> 1. It was in HTML and had a pleasing font.  But I understand why this is
> a no-no.
> Some terminals are going to display it as half garbage.

One of these days, you will need to fix a broken system and all
you'll have available is mailx... (that is, if redhat in it's
not-so-infinite wisdom decides that mailx doesn't belong on it's
gui-based systems anymore) ...we'll see how much you like html
mail then.

> 2. I didn't have to scroll to the bottom to read it.  Since I was
> following the subject,
> I had read the previous messages and knew what it was about.  I could
> just read Brian's
> message, which was already positioned at the top where I could read it,
> and disregard the rest.

...speaking of disregarding, I went back int my trash folder to dig this
out to answer it. Why was it in the trash you ask? html, wrapped way too
long and top-posted. You are literally begging to not have your posts

> Faster than finding the bottom, backing up to the beginning of the
> message, and starting there.
> 3. What is it that's bad about top posting? In the UK at least, it seems
> to be prevalent.

... but then so is driving on the wrong side of the road.... :))

> I recall the Claire Swire incident as a brilliant example of a long
> top-posted  thread.
> What is meant by fullquoting?

What you've seen here.

To see what a top-posting response to this diatribe would be, simply
delete all your stuff and try to follow the thread and the responses.
Keith Mastin
BeechTree Information Technology Services Inc.
Toronto, Canada
(416)696 6070

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]