[139550] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Top-posting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Mon Apr 11 20:09:25 2011
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:05:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <2EAB3B167507DEE08418E7C9@Mac-Pro.local>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daniel Staal" <DStaal@usa.net>
> --As of April 11, 2011 3:11:15 PM -0400, Jay Ashworth is alleged to
> have said:
Nope; I really said it. :-)
> > Standard threaded (IE: not top-posted) replies have been the standard for
> > technical mailing lists on the net since I first joined one.
> >
> > In 1983.
Footnote: Maybe that was more Usenet, that early. :-)
> > Anyone who has a problem with it can, in short, go bugger off.
> > Really.
>
> --As for the rest, it is mine.
>
> I've found my mail has fallen into three basic categories over time:
>
> 1) Mailing list, technical or otherwise.
> 2) Personal discussions.
> 3) 'Official' work email, of one form or another.
>
> Of the three, #1 almost always is either bottom posted, or fully
> intermixed. #2 I often introduce people to the idea, but once they get
> it they like it. In both of these it is more important what is replying
> to what, and what the *current state* of the conversation is. Either one
> I can rely on the other participants to have the history (or at least
> have access to it). Top-posting in either context is non-helpful.
Well put.
> #3, is always top-posted, and I've grown to like that in that context.
> The most current post serves as a 'this is where we are right now, and
> what needs to be done', while the rest tends to preserve the *entire*
> history, including any parts I was not a part of initially. (For instance: A
> user sends an email to their boss, who emails the helpdesk, who emails back
> for clarification, and then forwards on that reply to me. At that point
> it's often nice to know what the original issue was, or to be able to reach
> the user directly instead of through several layers of intermediary.)
I sorely hate to admit it, but you're right. I tried doing traditional
quoting on emails in my last position (as IT director in a call center),
and everyone else's heads came off and rolled around on the floor; my boss,
the controller, actually *asked me to stop*.
> It has different strengths and weaknesses, and can be useful in it's
> place. Mailing lists are not top-posting's place. ;)
We clearly agree, here. Hopefully, we've clarified the reasons why,
for anyone who was on the fence.
> (As for HTML email... I've yet to meet an actual human who routinely
> used HTML-only emails. They are a sure sign of a marketing department's
> involvement.)
I have. No, not necessarily.
Cheers,
-- jra
