Thanks for your reply. Paul Novitski already "talked" with me about it
(in private), and my conclusions were...
-----
I guess that has something to do with the way *I* read my mails, since
I'm usually aware what people are talking about (since I've wrote the
one they're responding, or I've been following the thread)
I think you have a pretty good reason, but I also think it doesn't work
for me --since I have to skip the whole message I've already read, or
what I wrote :) Thanks for your answer (and so fast)
-----
I guess this is just one more of the too-many-already debatible points
out there. At the end, is a matter of taste, I can't see any as the
right nor wrong option.
PS I'd ask you a favor: do not include the email in the quotation, since
these message are usually available (via http) in some sites, and having
my email there makes a lot easier for me to get (even) more spam
PPS WTF is "IMALOOPHO"?
Porpoise wrote:
"Rafael" <email-was-here> wrote in message
news:41.D3.18514.A79F2544@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
P.S. What, in your mind, is the advantage of replying after quoting the
original message and not before? :)
In an NG environment, it allows everyone to follow the logic and see
clearly what is being replied to, in the correct context.
IMALOOPHO...
--
Atentamente,
J. Rafael Salazar Magaña
Innox - Innovación Inteligente
Tel: +52 (33) 3615 5348 ext. 205 / 01 800 2-SOFTWARE
http://www.innox.com.mx
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
