nanog mailing list archives
Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.
From: Stephen Satchell <list () satchell net>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:42:57 -0700
On 09/09/2015 06:36 AM, Dovid Bender wrote:
I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does it give you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal? It's just text at the bottom of your email.
It's all about best practices.In an e-mail thread, where the thread grows with each response, the original e-mail etiquette is that people put their reply at the bottom of the message. The theory behind the practice is that when you are going back to read the message later, you can read it top-down and get the contributions in chronological order. (And only save the last one, instead of all of them.)
If you have a huge disclaimer in your sig, when the reader goes to the bottom of the e-mail to read the latest contribution, they have to back up over the over-large signature block. This is irritating. For some readers using non-graphical e-mail clients or Web clients, that irritation can grow to the point that the message gets tossed.
That's why the Best Practices RFC said to have no more than three lines in your .sig of at most 71 characters each.
With AOL and "Forever September", some of these things get lost in the waves and waves of non-compliance, not because people don't want to be good citizens, but because they don't know better. And, if you aren't keeping the entire thread (such as what I'm doing here), you trim quotes to the absolute minimum to maintain context, so that people don't have to wade through the whole mess.
It also avoids top-posting, which in some circles is Bad Form(tm). By the way, it's never been about cat videos...
Current thread:
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it., (continued)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Connor Wilkins (Sep 06)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Rich Kulawiec (Sep 08)
- Message not available
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Larry Sheldon (Sep 08)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Dovid Bender (Sep 09)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Alan Buxey (Sep 09)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Dovid Bender (Sep 09)
- RE: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Tony Hain (Sep 09)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Oliver O'Boyle (Sep 09)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Connor Wilkins (Sep 06)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. John Levine (Sep 09)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 09)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Stephen Satchell (Sep 09)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. William Herrin (Sep 09)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. John Levine (Sep 09)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Owen DeLong (Sep 09)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Octavio Alvarez (Sep 09)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Justin M. Streiner (Sep 09)
- Message not available
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Larry Sheldon (Sep 09)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Joel Maslak (Sep 10)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Landon Stewart (Sep 10)
- Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. William Herrin (Sep 10)
- RE: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. Keith Medcalf (Sep 10)