nahh that's perfectly fine.
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 dvcorbin_at_optonline.net wrote:
> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:25:04 -0500
> From: dvcorbin_at_optonline.net
> Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> <cctalk_at_classiccmp.org>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk_at_classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: List Netiquette RFCs (Yes, they exist!)
>
> PLEASE SEE BELOW:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roger Merchberger <zmerch_at_30below.com>
> Date: Thursday, February 24, 2005 2:10 pm
> Subject: List Netiquette RFCs (Yes, they exist!)
>
>> Rumor has it that Computer Collector Newsletter may have mentioned
>> these words:
>>> Sorry everyone -- that was supposed to be a private reply to Jay.
>>
>> Oops... ;-)
>>
>>> LOL, but now that it's out there ... I assume 'top post' has
>> something to do
>>> with where the replies are vs. the original message ...
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>> like this one for
>>> example. Then again, it's not like I'm a list newbie, yet I've
>> never seen
>>> this
>>> complaint before.
>>
>> That's because we're generally a kind sort... we'd rather argue
>> about guns,
>> carburetors, explosives... ;-)
>>
>>> Since everyone uses their email differently, I think it's pretty
>> silly for
>>> someone to say that his own preferred method is right, and that
>> other methods
>>> are frowned on.
>>
>> However, you say that as if it's solely a 'preference' -> and not
>> an
>> 'Internet Standard.' There *is* an RFC about email Netiquette: RFC
>> 1855.
>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
>>
>> Specifically, section 3.1.1 part 10:
>>
>> - If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
>> summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
>> enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
>> sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
>> Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
>> postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
>> response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
>> helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
>>
>> =-=-=-=-=
>>
>> Please take into account: 1) I'm not trying to take sides, become
>> a 'list
>> overlord' (That's Jay's Job! ;-) or start [yet another] flamewar.
>> I'm just
>> pointing out there's a lot more to it than just preference and
>> there
>> actually is good logical reasoning behind the top-post vs. inline
>> post vs.
>> bottom post vs. psychic post vs. ad nauseum post replying methods.
>>
>> Laterz,
>> Roger "Merch" Merchberger
>>
>> P.S. the method of 'top posting' has a tendency for the 'replier'
>> to not
>> notice they're not trimming their replies - including your 9-line
>> sig that
>> you replied from yourself with and left it in both times...
>> ;-) It's along the same lines of: "Be Kind To Jay" and all that,
>> of which,
>> might I say, you shouldn't be feigning naivete'...
>>
>> --
>> Roger "Merch" Merchberger | Anarchy doesn't scale well. -- Me
>> zmerch_at_30below.com. |
>> SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
>>
>>
>
> I AM WONDERING IT I SHOULD HAVE TRIMMED THIS????????
>
>
Received on Thu Feb 24 2005 - 14:05:44 GMT