[139567] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Top-posting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Apr 12 01:28:51 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110412001230.GB30891@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 22:23:24 -0700
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I sincerely
On Apr 11, 2011, at 5:12 PM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> interleaved posting is considered harmful.
>=20
Disagree.
Owen
> /bill
>=20
>=20
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 08:05:51PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Daniel Staal" <DStaal@usa.net>
>>=20
>>> --As of April 11, 2011 3:11:15 PM -0400, Jay Ashworth is alleged to
>>> have said:
>>=20
>> Nope; I really said it. :-)
>>=20
>>>> Standard threaded (IE: not top-posted) replies have been the =
standard for
>>>> technical mailing lists on the net since I first joined one.
>>>>=20
>>>> In 1983.
>>=20
>> Footnote: Maybe that was more Usenet, that early. :-)
>>=20
>>>> Anyone who has a problem with it can, in short, go bugger off.
>>>> Really.
>>>=20
>>> --As for the rest, it is mine.
>>>=20
>>> I've found my mail has fallen into three basic categories over time:
>>>=20
>>> 1) Mailing list, technical or otherwise.
>>> 2) Personal discussions.
>>> 3) 'Official' work email, of one form or another.
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>> Well put.
>>=20
>>> #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.)
>>=20
>> 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*.
>>=20
>>> It has different strengths and weaknesses, and can be useful in it's
>>> place. Mailing lists are not top-posting's place. ;)
>>=20
>> We clearly agree, here. Hopefully, we've clarified the reasons why,=20=
>> for anyone who was on the fence.
>>=20
>>> (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.)
>>=20
>> I have. No, not necessarily.
>>=20
>> Cheers,
>> -- jra
