Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Top posting [was: MM - #$%@ Kill Google!]
From: Nick FitzGerald <nick () virus-l demon co uk>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:21:42 +1200
Dee Holtsclaw wrote:
It's also quite a pain to inline post for those unfortunates stuck with BillCo's LookOut! The quote formatting in many versions tends to get confused when you try to insert new text and you often end up with a tangled mess.
So the rest of us should "suffer" to make life easier for people stupid enough to use about the crappiest MUA ever made? Gimme a break... If you "have to" use Outlook and thus properly quoting and trimming your messages is "too hard", just go boil your head, or at least be polite enough to the rest of us to simply not post. The abortion that is message quoting and top-posting in Outlook is largely due to an over-zealous approach to its early design to make it even shittier than Lotus Notes was. Given that, it is outstandingly successful, but is utter rubbish for use in traditional threaded mailing list conversations which require an entirely different approach and mindset for _efficient_ information exchange and debate. Top-posted, non-inline replies are fine for typical "corporate" Email exchanges where it is commonly the case that a single, and usually simple, issue is at hand: -------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Tom From: Mary Subject: Monthly sales figures? I need them by midday Thursday to work through on my flight to DC! -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Mary From: Tom Subject: Re: Monthly sales figures? No problems. Dick is helping and we'll have them done before that. [red] To: Tom From: Mary Subject: Monthly sales figures? I need them by midday Thursday to work through on my flight to DC! -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Tom From: Mary CC: Dick Subject: Re: Monthly sales figures? That's great, but HR has just bumped my DC flight to the red-eye so I can assist in interviewing the new regional sales manager there. I need the report to read on the flight so you'll have to get it to me by Email before 6:00am Thursday. [blue] To: Mary From: Tom Subject: Re: Monthly sales figures? No problems. Dick is helping and we'll have them done before that. [/blue] [red] To: Tom From: Mary Subject: Monthly sales figures? I need them by midday Thursday to work through on my flight to DC! -------------------------------------------------------------------- ...ad nauseum. The point of such quoting is that at any point you can CC in someone not part of the conversation and they can see the whole story (so long as they don't mind reading "backwards"). In (most) public mailing lists, that function is provided by official archives of the list traffic. For those in the main thread of such top-posting conversations, all that matters is the latest addition, "conveniently" put at the top. Sadly for top-posters, that model simply does not apply to typical mailing list traffic. Many of us who read these lists simultaneously track _dozens_ of conversations PER LIST and do so for many lists. Top posting is thus very disruptive of the "normal", very long-term historically institutionalized and thus EXPECTED conversational style of such lists. It is also totally contrary to normal logical thought and reading processes for Western languages. So, if anyone wants to take part in discussions in lists like this, don't be surprised if you are ignored, flamed or both, for "breaking the rules" because of your choice of top-posting and/or non-inline (where appropriate; it's not always) commentary style. You get that response not JUST because "it's wrong" but because you are significantly disrupting the ability of many who otherwise give their free time and often considerable expertise as free advice, to do so. Personally, it has got to the point where I often just delete top- posted replies to messages in threads I'm interested in following because the mental exercise of working out what the heck part or parts of what has gone before are being responded to is just not worth the effort. Regards, Nick FitzGerald _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- [Fwd: MM - #$%@ Kill Google!] Jason Coombs (Sep 08)
- Re: [Fwd: MM - #$%@ Kill Google!] Micheal Espinola Jr (Sep 08)
- Re: [Fwd: MM - #$%@ Kill Google!] Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 08)
- Re: [Fwd: MM - #$%@ Kill Google!] Micheal Espinola Jr (Sep 08)
- Re: [Fwd: MM - #$%@ Kill Google!] Gareth Davies (Sep 08)
- Re: [Fwd: MM - #$%@ Kill Google!] Steve Kudlak (Sep 09)
- Top posting [was: MM - #$%@ Kill Google!] Dee Holtsclaw (Sep 09)
- Re: Top posting [was: MM - #$%@ Kill Google!] Dave Korn (Sep 09)
- Re: Top posting [was: MM - #$%@ Kill Google!] Nick FitzGerald (Sep 09)
- Re: [Fwd: MM - #$%@ Kill Google!] Ivaylo Zashev (Sep 09)
- Re: [Fwd: MM - #$%@ Kill Google!] Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 08)
- Re: [Fwd: MM - #$%@ Kill Google!] Micheal Espinola Jr (Sep 08)