Hi, The 16/12/11, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote: > I am all for bottom posting if it helps the reader of my mail. > But, > > * For instance, I use t-prot to fold the reply, so that I don't have > keep scrolling to read the reply I already know (because mails are > threaded), but I may be outside or using something which doesn't > fold as well as this, in those circumstances top posting helps. Quoting the whole mail like you did is as crappy as top-posting. This is exactly what makes everybody scroll. > * Regarding the context that people seem to be so enthusiastically ebullient about > (even on the links you posted), tell me how much of context do you > see in mails of today ? 1 ? 2 ? I followed this whole thread and I > don't see more than that. Do you know why ? Art of quoting is *not* a matter of context level. It's about direct relevance of your own answer. > I don't think this top or bottom posting matters to me for I use a sane > client. But you keep whole-quoting which is silly. No MUA can help for that. > But what matters to me most is a post and bunch of morons (not > your fault) replying stating people to be forcefully unsubscribed and/or > rebuked if they top post. People who don't know how to work with mails need education. Once done, if they don't want to conform, it's pretty normal to ban them. > I understand that people should bottom post but to > enforce it won't be that easy; though you can write script to process > your incoming mails and make all bottom posted, shouldnt be hard with > procmail (given that all use markers when replying). This is the worst. Banning means we are free to not accept people who decided to not conform to the netiquette. Changing answers by a bot means there is no more respect for human choices. What your bot would have done with the "hi" I wrote on the top of my answer? What solution will you spread when some people will be tied to hear words like "suck", "fuck" and so? -- Nicolas Sebrecht
