[139571] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Top-posting (was: Barracuda Networks is at it again: Any
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael DeMan)
Tue Apr 12 02:35:32 2011
From: Michael DeMan <nanog@deman.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110411181533.46782.qmail@joyce.lan>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:33:59 -0700
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Call me and old 'hard case' - but I prefer that when I get information =
via email, that if possible, the relevant information show up =
immediately.
Call me lazy I guess - but I would expect that most folks on this list =
have also understood good user interface design, and that the least =
amount of work that needs to be done for the receiver to be able to get =
their information is frequently the best solution.
On the other hand - I must admit that I do often top post and note 'see =
inline' with heavy use of snipping in order to shorten what has turned =
into a long topic in order to make it a shorter and more concise topic.
I absolutely agree with anybody (or everybody), that wants mailing list =
archives to be readable. Fortunately we have things called 'computers' =
that do that quite well - and reorganize the email correspondence on =
mailing lists back into standard chronological order.
I am also not adverse to changing formats - I just think that it is just =
inefficient.
- mike
On Apr 11, 2011, at 11:15 AM, John Levine wrote:
> It's really impressive how insular a bunch of old timers can be.
>=20
> Coming up next: rants about HTML mail!
>=20
> R's,
> John
>=20
> In article <BANLkTi=3Dv11TghFGmxStjxscJTGpB6CTwUQ@mail.gmail.com> you =
write:
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> =
wrote:
>>> Of late I have started to get responses from people (not even the =
person
>>> who top-posted) saying that I should f*** off and that they would =
post
>>> however they wanted. Very hostile and even threatening.
>>=20
>> My wife complained once that my responses are hard to read and that I
>> should "just put at the top like the rest of the Internet." I fear I
>> have been passed by...
>=20
