On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Brunner, Brian T. BBrunner@gai-tronics.com wrote:
Trim your quotes.
LOL
I was in a hurry... I think that this applies to all in this thread so I hope that you've email everyone else...
Also, please keep your commands on-list; I only caught your email because it was at the top of my spam directory when I was emptying it.
LOL twice, I'll top-post! (I hate M$ Office, but I'm stuck with it)
I didn't want my whining (not commanding) archived for-frigging-ever, so I sent it direct.
TBH I ran out of steam/indignation/angst after a few of the over-quoter under-trimmers, so I didn't get all.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Tom H Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:34 AM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Brunner, Brian T. BBrunner@gai-tronics.com wrote:
Trim your quotes.
LOL
I was in a hurry... I think that this applies to all in this thread so I hope that you've email everyone else...
Also, please keep your commands on-list; I only caught your email because it was at the top of my spam directory when I was emptying it. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:51:16AM -0500, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
LOL twice, I'll top-post! (I hate M$ Office, but I'm stuck with it)
Really? In blatant disregard for the published guidelines for use on this and other centos.org mailing lists? How very sporting of you.
http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=16
John
On 12/07/2010 04:31 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:51:16AM -0500, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
LOL twice, I'll top-post! (I hate M$ Office, but I'm stuck with it)
Really? In blatant disregard for the published guidelines for use on this and other centos.org mailing lists? How very sporting of you.
http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=16
John
Why do we bottom post? People have said so you can read what has been already written before you reply. But all the time people <snip> out big sections. That IMHO defeats the reason for bottom posting.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 07:41:58AM -0500, Steve Clark wrote:
Why do we bottom post? People have said so you can read what has been already written before you reply. But all the time people <snip> out big sections. That IMHO defeats the reason for bottom posting.
Top posting ruins the flow of the standard English written language and makes following conversation topics awkward, at best. A classic example of this is the following section:
A: Yes.
Q: Are you sure?
A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
As you can see the above makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and makes following the topic next to impossible.
As far as trimming out extraneous junk goes... if it is done properly only non-relevant portions of quoted text is removed; when you don't trim you end up with cascade replies that contain all text from all previous replies where the message authors have not removed material. It's a complete waste of resources to have to process what amounts to junk.
John
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 07:41:58AM -0500, Steve Clark wrote:
On 12/07/2010 04:31 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
Why do we bottom post? People have said so you can read what has been already written before you reply. But all the time people <snip> out big sections. That IMHO defeats the reason for bottom posting.
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php
http://howto-pages.org/posting_style
give good explanations. Trimming is important. Putting a two line answer at the end of 400 line message isn't very helpful either.
Scott Robbins wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 07:41:58AM -0500, Steve Clark wrote:
On 12/07/2010 04:31 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
Why do we bottom post? People have said so you can read what has been already written before you reply. But all the time people <snip> out big sections. That IMHO defeats the reason for bottom posting.
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php
http://howto-pages.org/posting_style
give good explanations. Trimming is important. Putting a two line answer at the end of 400 line message isn't very helpful either.
Oh, like Certain Parties who may or may not work for RedHat, esp. over on the selinux list?, he asks, innocently....
mark
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 09:43:03AM -0500, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Scott Robbins wrote:
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php
http://howto-pages.org/posting_style
give good explanations. Trimming is important. Putting a two line answer at the end of 400 line message isn't very helpful either.
Oh, like Certain Parties who may or may not work for RedHat, esp. over on the selinux list?, he asks, innocently....
Honestly, I had no one in mind. I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing list for something else. I hadn't realized how most people top post, don't trim, and still use aol.
I was actually thinking of something off that list, where someone wrote a longgggggggggg post and someone else responded at the very end, saying nice post.
I guess the reason it jars us here is because most people post properly.
Scott Robbins wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 09:43:03AM -0500, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Scott Robbins wrote:
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php
http://howto-pages.org/posting_style
give good explanations. Trimming is important. Putting a two line answer at the end of 400 line message isn't very helpful either.
Oh, like Certain Parties who may or may not work for RedHat, esp. over on the selinux list?, he asks, innocently....
Honestly, I had no one in mind.
Honestly, I did.
I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing list for something else. I hadn't realized how most people top post, don't trim, and still use aol.
They do it at work, too, and I've got folks who know better. I reformat their emails, if it's worth it (i.e., more than a one-liner).
I was actually thinking of something off that list, where someone wrote a longgggggggggg post and someone else responded at the very end, saying nice post.
Classic usenet newby.
I guess the reason it jars us here is because most people post properly.
I tend to intercollate replies to direct lines, and then bottom post, to add more to the conversation.
mark
I guess the reason it jars us here is because most people post properly.
Except the gmail lusers who haven't figured out how to turn off multipart html crap.
--------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments may contain Cypress (or its subsidiaries) confidential information. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message. ---------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 15:16 +0000, lhecking@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
I guess the reason it jars us here is because most people post properly.
Except the gmail lusers who haven't figured out how to turn off multipart html crap.
+1
Although I've found @gmail user's consider themselves far too-cool to be concerned with netiquette. GMail is the new AOL.
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 15:16 +0000, lhecking@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
I guess the reason it jars us here is because most people post
properly. Except the gmail lusers who haven't figured out how to turn off multipart html crap.
+1
Although I've found @gmail user's consider themselves far too-cool to be concerned with netiquette. GMail is the new AOL.
Ghu! I remember when AOHell got onto the 'Net, and they autosubscribed *all* their members to certain newsgroups... and they had *no* clue. I occasionally dipped into alt.best.of.usenet, for reposting stuff from other newsgroups that was hysterical... esp. when the original poster didn't intend it that way. Then came the turkeys, and "I can post whatever I want, wherever I want...."
But this is way OT.
mark, stopping now
I guess the reason it jars us here is because most people post properly.
Except the gmail lusers who haven't figured out how to turn off multipart html crap.
+1
Unfair: the 'text' formatting mode from GMail is very standard compliant, trimming the lines etc.
Maybe one should just more explicitly tell new users to enable it when posting to mailing-lists. This is even easier to activate (this hyperlink right here above the text area) than in any mail client I have ever seen (except those which do only text, of course...)
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Adam Tauno Williams awilliam@whitemice.org wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 15:16 +0000, lhecking@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
I guess the reason it jars us here is because most people post properly.
Except the gmail lusers who haven't figured out how to turn off multipart html crap.
+1
Although I've found @gmail user's consider themselves far too-cool to be concerned with netiquette. GMail is the new AOL.
Thanks for the compliments!
On 12/08/2010 07:03 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
Honestly, I had no one in mind. I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing list for something else. I hadn't realized how most people top post, don't trim, and still use aol.
It really is worth noting that the bottom-post convention used on many technical lists *is not* how most of the planet now does email or other electronic communications. The rage we see here over it is really just another technical 'religious war' by people who don't tolerate change well. In reality, it doesn't matter much for most things either way and far more harm is done by the howling over it than using either convention actually causes.
I still remember the rage sparked on the Usenet by some old timers when people started using JPEG and MIME rather than GIF and uuencoding. Oh, the horror of it.
Oh, BTW: vim over emacs.
;-)
I agree!!!
On 08/12/2010 16:46, Jerry Franz wrote:
On 12/08/2010 07:03 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
Honestly, I had no one in mind. I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing list for something else. I hadn't realized how most people top post, don't trim, and still use aol.
It really is worth noting that the bottom-post convention used on many technical lists *is not* how most of the planet now does email or other electronic communications. The rage we see here over it is really just another technical 'religious war' by people who don't tolerate change well. In reality, it doesn't matter much for most things either way and far more harm is done by the howling over it than using either convention actually causes.
I still remember the rage sparked on the Usenet by some old timers when people started using JPEG and MIME rather than GIF and uuencoding. Oh, the horror of it.
Oh, BTW: vim over emacs.
;-)
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 07:46 -0800, Jerry Franz wrote:
On 12/08/2010 07:03 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
Honestly, I had no one in mind. I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing list for something else. I hadn't realized how most people top post, don't trim, and still use aol.
It really is worth noting that the bottom-post convention used on many technical lists *is not* how most of the planet now does email or other electronic communications. The rage we see here over it is really just another technical 'religious war' by people who don't tolerate change well. In reality, it doesn't matter much for most things either way and far more harm is done by the howling over it than using either convention actually causes.
Ok, well then you call be religiously intolerant. I care; for what I sincerely believe to be very *practical* reasons. Top-Post messages are often quite confusing; they often respond to one point in a longer message - and you don't have any idea which one. And the don't encourage trimming which makes reading a message resulting from a thread really bad.
I use e-mail, especially archives, to research problems and issues - so readability matters.
Trust me [which of course you won't seeing as you already dismissed my point of view] but it *REALLY MATTERS* when going back and reading e-mail how the poster(s) managed the message's contents.
Jerry Franz wrote:
On 12/08/2010 07:03 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
Honestly, I had no one in mind. I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing list for something else. I hadn't realized how most people top post, don't trim, and still use aol.
It really is worth noting that the bottom-post convention used on many technical lists *is not* how most of the planet now does email or other
The damn thing is a conversation. Top posting is talking over everyone else.
electronic communications. The rage we see here over it is really just another technical 'religious war' by people who don't tolerate change well. In reality, it doesn't matter much for most things either way and far more harm is done by the howling over it than using either convention actually causes.
So, we should put up with rudeness and obnoxious behavior? See my post about when AOHell got on the 'Net.
I still remember the rage sparked on the Usenet by some old timers when people started using JPEG and MIME rather than GIF and uuencoding. Oh, the horror of it.
Don't remember lots of yelling.
Oh, BTW: vim over emacs.
alt.religion.editors <g>
mark
Responses inline.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of m.roth@5-cent.us Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11:13 To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Nerd rage (Was: IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?)
Jerry Franz wrote:
On 12/08/2010 07:03 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
Honestly, I had no one in mind. I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing list for something else. I hadn't realized how
most people
top post, don't trim, and still use aol.
It really is worth noting that the bottom-post convention
used on many
technical lists *is not* how most of the planet now does email or other
The damn thing is a conversation. Top posting is talking over everyone else.
I had a customer blast me about inlined responses, it drove me bonkers. I was responding to 15 individual questions.
electronic communications. The rage we see here over it is
really just
another technical 'religious war' by people who don't
tolerate change
well. In reality, it doesn't matter much for most things either way and far more harm is done by the howling over it than using either convention actually causes.
So, we should put up with rudeness and obnoxious behavior?
The above mention customer continued to indicate how unprofessional I was by not top posting my reply. The reason was there was no instruction to the reader that they should review the WHOLE email for new information. So now I can demonstrate good business etiquite and good netiquite. See first line of email.
P.S. I use outlook. I set it to Plain Text, and I move my cursor to where I want to type.
Thanks for hearing my rants too.
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - - - Jason Pyeron PD Inc. http://www.pdinc.us - - Principal Consultant 10 West 24th Street #100 - - +1 (443) 269-1555 x333 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 - - - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- This message is copyright PD Inc, subject to license 20080407P00.
-----Original Message----- Responses inline.
Jerry Franz wrote:
On 12/08/2010 07:03 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
Honestly, I had no one in mind. I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing list for something else. I hadn't realized how
most people
top post, don't trim, and still use aol.
It really is worth noting that the bottom-post convention
used on many
technical lists *is not* how most of the planet now does email or other
The damn thing is a conversation. Top posting is talking over everyone else.
I had a customer blast me about inlined responses, it drove me bonkers. I was responding to 15 individual questions.
I think that the missed point here is "obey the rules of the list" (I'm ignoring customers who find it hard to read ;-) ). If the rules state bottom posting only then that's it, no arguments. If you don't like the rules don't post/join etc.
electronic communications. The rage we see here over it is
really just
another technical 'religious war' by people who don't
tolerate change
well. In reality, it doesn't matter much for most things either way and far more harm is done by the howling over it than using either convention actually causes.
So, we should put up with rudeness and obnoxious behavior?
I think that this http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html should be read in conjunction with the list rules. This helps to explain why some questions elicit things that might be considered rude.
On other lists that I subscribe to they also take a dim view of top posting - specifically for the reasons of readability, i.e. top posting makes it difficult to pick up a thread mid conversation.
Anyway, that's just my two-penneth worth...
Simon.
On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11:13:05 am m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Top posting is talking over everyone else.
Yep, you nailed it. It's <reply mode=jerry_springer_guest> in essence. And it is the way many non-technical people prefer to communicate. As Sam Goldwyn is often quoted as saying: 'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.' This is a rather common attitude, unfortunately even in tech circles, just not as often as in more non-tech circles.
Oh, BTW: vim over emacs.
alt.religion.editors <g>
What about alt.emacs.die.die.die or alt.vi.die.die.die? I seem to remember those passing my way long ago when I pulled nearly a full feed with C-News on some old unix kit. I don't think they lasted long....and I don't have an easily accessible full-alt-tree-enabled NNTP server at hand to look, nor do I have full archives of my old 3B1 anymore.....
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11:13:05 am m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
<snip>
Oh, BTW: vim over emacs.
Actually, yep. I do know how to exit from emacs (the windowing o/s masquerading as a text editor...).
alt.religion.editors <g>
What about alt.emacs.die.die.die or alt.vi.die.die.die? I seem to remember those passing my way long ago when I pulled nearly a full feed with C-News on some old unix kit. I don't think they lasted long....and I don't have an easily accessible full-alt-tree-enabled NNTP server at hand to look, nor do I have full archives of my old 3B1 anymore.....
Ok... I can see, this evening, if I can subscribe to one.
mark, who pays Newsguy for usenet feed
On 12/8/2010 9:46 AM, Jerry Franz wrote:
On 12/08/2010 07:03 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
Honestly, I had no one in mind. I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing list for something else. I hadn't realized how most people top post, don't trim, and still use aol.
It really is worth noting that the bottom-post convention used on many technical lists *is not* how most of the planet now does email or other electronic communications.
The distinction is kind of blurring in these days of huge multi-national companies, but business and personal email tends to have quick responses where you normally remember the previous content and don't need it at all for context but might want the whole thread for an audit trail.
By contrast, mail list mail messages are likely to be seen by many people who did not see the previous exchange(s) or care enough about them to remember. So they need the context quoted correctly to understand the reply. Also, they are likely to be using a search to find archived messages and leaving content that is unrelated to the current reply screws up the ability to find anything.
The rage we see here over it is really just another technical 'religious war' by people who don't tolerate change well.
No, there are very practical reasons and the point is to educate others with obvious inexperience as to how to make their input better for others which after all, should be the main reason for typing it in the first place.
In reality, it doesn't matter much for most things either way and far more harm is done by the howling over it than using either convention actually causes.
That's partly true - if someone rudely ignores time-proven conventions you can politely overlook it - for a while...
On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:03:26 am Scott Robbins wrote:
I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing list for something else. I hadn't realized how most people top post, don't trim, and still use aol.
Lots of corporate people top post to retain the threading, and get rather upset when you trim the replies below, since they aren't using MUA's that can thread. Not to mention that top-posting is the default reply setup for the most commonly used corporate-type MUA's.
I often use 'standard' netiquette in replying, and have had a few cases there the recipient had never seen that, and it confused the daylights out of them. And they want the reply thread to be in-message (again, since they're not using a threaded MUA). Or in the case of Outlook 2003 or later, they've never used 'Arrange by Conversation' and don't realize how useful that can be (Outlook 2010 I've heard greatly improves things).
We use Scalix here as our MTA and web-based MUA, and the web MUA doesn't thread. The primary purpose is for being a groupware backend to MS Outlook; 'Arrange by Conversation' isn't used a whole lot. I keep getting asked 'why don't you use a real mailreader like Outlook?' and I then show them the volume of e-mail I get, and the features of Kmail that I use heavily that Outlook simply does not have, or doesn't do as well. They typically still don't get it; threading confuses many people who have never used it.
Likewise for the common and irritating practice of using 'Reply' as a shortcut to sending a new post, especially to a mailing list. If your MUA is not threaded, you simply don't see a problem with the practice. Mine is, I do, and I don't do that. :-)
Lots of corporate people top post to retain the threading, and get rather upset when you trim the replies below, since they aren't using MUA's that can thread. Not to mention that top-posting is the default reply setup for the most commonly used corporate-type MUA's.
+1. M$ Outlook defaults to top-posting in HTML. Sometimes I forget to override that.
I keep getting asked 'why don't you use a real mailreader like
Outlook?'
*solemnly bangs head on table* That's a trojan-trampoline disguised as a mail reader.
Top/bottom/mingled replies don't bother me. Top-post-nazis and bottom-post-nazis do.
Replies to LONG posts with one-sentence comments on the bottom are a pain.
Back when Mark was writing in COBOL (and I was teaching it), we needed killfiles that really kill. Still do.
End-of-off-topic ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**
Le 2010-12-08 07:41, Steve Clark a écrit :
On 12/07/2010 04:31 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:51:16AM -0500, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
LOL twice, I'll top-post! (I hate M$ Office, but I'm stuck with it)
Really? In blatant disregard for the published guidelines for use on this and other centos.org mailing lists? How very sporting of you.
http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=16
JohnWhy do we bottom post? People have said so you can read what has been already written before you reply. But all the time people <snip> out big sections. That IMHO defeats the reason for bottom posting.
No IMHO.
You snip a text and keep important stuff so people can better understand your answer.
With bottom posting, you have the text in the normal read order.
I am a tech support engineer and all i can say is that top posting is very irritating, i receive like 400 e-mail a day... Reading long posts reverse is a nightmare.
You may have reason to resist bottom posting like using Outlook (which has many default like not respecting anything: Standards, posting order, etc). But that's an entire other story...
Guy Boisvert Senior tech support engineer IngTegration inc.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Brunner, Brian T. BBrunner@gai-tronics.com wrote:
From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Tom H Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:34 AM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Brunner, Brian T. BBrunner@gai-tronics.com wrote:
Trim your quotes.
LOL
I was in a hurry... I think that this applies to all in this thread so I hope that you've email everyone else...
Also, please keep your commands on-list; I only caught your email because it was at the top of my spam directory when I was emptying it.
LOL twice, I'll top-post! (I hate M$ Office, but I'm stuck with it)
I didn't want my whining (not commanding) archived for-frigging-ever, so I sent it direct.
TBH I ran out of steam/indignation/angst after a few of the over-quoter under-trimmers, so I didn't get all.
Having a request to trim in the archives' good! :)
-
Adam Tauno Williams -
Brunner, Brian T. -
Giles Coochey -
Guy Boisvert -
Jason Pyeron -
Jerry Franz -
John R. Dennison -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell -
lhecking＠users.sourceforge.net -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Mathieu Baudier -
Scott Robbins -
Simon Billis -
Steve Clark -
Tom H