[CentOS] rsyslog.conf

Thu Jul 23 16:06:47 UTC 2015
Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu>

On Thu, July 23, 2015 10:45 am, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 07/23/2015 09:34 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>> On Thu, July 23, 2015 8:43 am, Windsor Dave (AdP/TEF7) wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
> <snip>
>>>>> Sorry for the top post, Outlook defaults strike again.....
>>>> Outlook forces you to write above ? :-)
> <snip>
>>> Perhaps I should say instead that it "strongly encourages" top posting,
>>> and all our internal emails follow that convention.
>>> It's habit-forming.... :-)
>> Well, my habit for regular e-mail exchange is "top posting" thus the
>> person reads my message thus is right to the point why this particular
>> message message was sent in a first place... But when mail lists are
>> concerned, I do an opposite, that is I follow mail lists conventions. I
>> never thought about rationale behind them, I'm just following them. I
>> believe, if some day someone gives reasons why top posting is bad in
>> case
>> of mail lists it will really be great. The only reason I can come up
>> with
>> myself would be: whoever reads message received through mail lists
>> usually
>> has no idea about previous exchange in this thread, thus needs all
>> exchange in chronological order. Which I'm not certain is a good reason,
>> so those who know and insists strongly about "no top posting" are
>> encouraged to give others the reasons behind that. Again, I'm not "top
>> posting" on the lists. However, _this_ ("top posting") is my regular way
>> in private exchange (and it has good reasons behind it).
> The main reason actually is chronological order.  But not just for the
> reply .. but for IN-LINE posting.
> In a discussion where you need to make points in-line and where you only
> need some of and not all of the other posts, something that happens
> frequently on mailing lists, it is very much easier to read that type of
> collaborated message in chronological order.
> I mean, you don't read a book or a newspaper article or a blog post from
> bottom to top, right?  Why would you read communications from bottom to
> top?  And it is not really even bottom to top.  If you take 4 emails of
> 10 lines each (and 40 lines total)  .. it is 75% down to 100% (original
> mail)... then up to 50% and read down to 75% (2nd mail), then up to 25%
> and read down to 50%, then up to 0% and read down to 25%.  What if
> someone made you read blog posts that way, or books or newspaper articles?

OK, the shortest I can re-formulate your message is: on mail lists we are
collectively writing the book for someone else to read (much less
communicating with each other in real time ;-) Any accepted convention is
better than no convention: save everybody's time. Suits me (as far as mail
lists are concerned).


Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247