Hi Geert, On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 09:19:26AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:46 PM NeilBrown wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 07:11:36 +0300 Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > Yesterday someone on my lists just sent an email looking for kernel > > > > tasks. > > > > > > Well here's a task: write a bot which follows the mailing lists and > > > sends people nastygrams if one of their emails is more than 95%(?) > > > quoted text. > > > > Doesn't your email reader automatically hide most of a large quote? > > Mine does :-) > > That's part of the problem: many people don't see anymore if the > previous email author removed irrelevant parts or not. Until they > want to reply... > > > > It's happening significantly more lately. Possibly because the gmail > > > client helpfully hides quoted text. > > When replying, the Gmail web interface (or Chrome?) is also very > slow when selecting very long irrelevant parts for deletion. And it's > hard to predict when "Show original" and "b4 mbox && alpine -f" > would be faster... Get a better e-mail client ? ;-) At least with e-mail you have a choice between different clients. I've refrained from replying to this thread so far, as it seemed to be a caricature of a bikeshedding discussion, but for what it's worth, I often find myself in the opposite situation when I'm annoyed that someone trimmed too much of the discussion in their replies. Yes, replying to a 3000-lines patches with a full quote ana d a Reviewed-by tag at the very bottom, without any other comment, is annoying. On the other hand, trimming everything but the few lines to which you reply means that it gets much more annoying to jump in the discussion in the middle of a mail thread. There's a difference between trimming unrelated parts, and removing related content that happens not to be the direct subject of a particular reply. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
