Who reads their email the most Classically?

From: Jason McBrien <jbmcb_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Thu Aug 16 08:30:27 2001

I read my mail by cat'ing the mail spool file to a line printer. Is that
classical enough?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Borg" <kentborg_at_borg.org>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Who reads their email the most Classically?


> On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 06:09:51PM -0700, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
> > > >Sridhar, REPLY BELOW THE MESSAGES YOU QUOTE.
> >
> > > Iggy, SOME PEOPLE PREFER THAT THE NEW STUFF COME AT THE TOP.
> >
> > I thought it was more or less a de facto standard to top-quote.
>
> It depends. If one is blindly copying the entire previous message (or
> worse, entire message thread), it is better to put all that garbage at
> the bottom of the new message so the reader can easily ignore such
> chaff. (Can you tell I have a bias?)
>
> I am of the school of thought that figures the only reason for quoting
> previous content is to provide context so the new message will make
> sense. Following this reasoning, the context should be established
> first. HOWEVER, it is very important to trim the quote so that it
> only provides enough context and doesn't go overboard and turn into
> spam. Ever seen the TV program "The West Wing"? They start most
> programs with a short "previously on The West Wing..."-bit. It comes
> first (so the following program will make sense) and it is shorter
> than the new program (even though it covers more territory--the idea
> is that it be the new stuff that is important).
>
> It is also important to make clear what is what. I have seen messages
> where the new material is apparently marked off with quoting
> characters. I don't know how that happens.
>
> Remember, the goal is to communicate--and to be clear even.
>
>
> -kb, the normally liberal Kent who was nevertheless ~rather~ fond of
> that fascist feature in "rn" that refused to make a usenet posting
> that had more quoted material than new material.
>
>
Received on Thu Aug 16 2001 - 08:30:27 BST