Hi,
"Andy Holt" <andyh_at_andyh-rayleigh.freeserve.co.uk> said:
> Aaargh - INCOMING!!!
>
> Marvin Johnston [marvin_at_rain.org] said
> > I disagree :). Too many times, a mile and a half of quoted text starts
> > out the message. I don't care to take the time to scroll down, but
> > prefer to see the meat of what is being said at the top. It is
> > especially annoying when the subject line doesn't reflect the message
> > content ... which is most of the time.
> >
> So the regular argument now resurfaces on this list.
> There is an irreconcilable disagreement between the "old-style" users who
> got used to mailing lists with command-line tools for whom the bottom
> posting is truly more convenient and the newer users of packages like
> Outlook, Netscape, or other "web-style" tools which usually handle threading
> quite well and always start by displaying the top of the message - these
> users tend to prefer top posting.
>
> The old guard point out the RFC as justification for their attitude - but
> then it was written before the more modern tools became popular.
>
I don't think modern v. old-style tools is the problem. I don't like top
posting because I have to scroll down the message to find out what it's
about, then scroll back up to see how the response relates to the original
message. My mailer (exmh) displays the top of the messages and it's no
help in this situation.
> In complex cases bottom (interleaved) posting is necessary, and I have used
> that technique in this case (even though it is not really necessary) to
> minimise the heat in the flame war.
I prefer the interleaved approach as it is more conversational, and all
the related information is kept (more-or-less) together. Like this. ;-)
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb_at_dial.pipex.com
The future was never like this!
Received on Tue Apr 16 2002 - 07:21:44 BST