On Sunday 13 April 2003 16:08, Colburn uttered: > On a list one actively monitors it is much quicker to glance at the new > text and to then determine if it is even necessary to scroll down at > all. Much more efficient, especially for those of us who receive tons > of E-mails on tons of lists every day and don't have time to waste > scrolling down every post to see if anything useful is contained in the > new text. > > If there were to be any "netiquette" across the lists I care about it > would make far more sense for it to be top posting. > > IMHO, YMMV ... doc Heh, yet there are "valid" arguments to the opposite. Top posting means reverse threading. One has to scroll down to the bottom to find the thread beginnings, and then scroll back up, reading half backwards on the way up. When replies are on the bottom, the relevant text is at the top, and a user can scroll down reading all the relevant text, leading up to the new responce at the bottom. I prefer this method over top posting. Mostly because it leads to less instances of quoting the entire previous email, instead of only the relevant part. Having worked in corporate environments for a while, where Outlook was the prevailing email client, I got really tired of seeing a oneline reply to a 40 message long thread, quoted in it's entirety. I'd rather not see the same thing happen here. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE http://geek.j2solutions.net Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
