<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Florin Iucha <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:florin@iucha.net" target="_blank">florin@iucha.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:42:46AM -0500, James wrote:<br>
> At the time I was told the only approved messages were those sent as<br>
> text only, no html. Several people were really upset that I used html<br>
> in my email. My solution to their problem was to leave the group.<br>
<br>
</div>You probably used a bad MUA that didn't even bother to send a<br>
plain-text version.<br>
<br>
The same way that you think your way of sending HTML mail from a phone<br>
works best for you, I think that reading it in text mode through a SSH<br>
connection works best for me. But if you want to communicate, you<br>
need to send something that we can both see...<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<div><div></div><div>florin<br><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>There comes a time when you (the royal you, not you specifically, florin.<br>Which is to say I'm addressing the point more than the individual here. )<br>
are just being plain stubborn. Clinging to your VT100 terminal emulation <br>over ssh with a MUA that can't render HTML to ASCII and crying out against <br>the individuals who encroach on your self-selected corner of the <br>
internet where others like you congregate and bemoan the masses<br>that insist on using new-fangled technology and styles for <br>electronic communication... yeah. Taken to a certain degree <br>that's just being stubborn - there is no moral high ground. <br>
It can be argued the html-incompatible-MUA user has <br>self-selected out and is asking everyone else to bend over backwards<br>for him. How is that not selfish and obnoxious? <br><br>At risk of throwing gas on fire I'll take a moment just to share some <br>
thought on the top versus in-line posting topic since that sort of <br>kvetching goes hand-in-hand with this topic and has already <br>occurred in this thread. <br><br>At a meta-level, the only people hanging onto this point and strongly<br>
voicing opinions that will likely go with them to their grave are... <br>the in-line posters. As someone who has been using email since<br>1990 (that's pre-web, for some of you younger whipper-snappers, and <br>I also recall every machine that was globally visible was in /etc/hosts..), <br>
I was once strongly on the in-line side of this debate. That's <br>how everyone did it. And as time went by, and AOL opened up <br>gateways to USENET (and crapped on the Internets by doing so, imho), <br>and the unwashed masses began to participate in online communities,<br>
I woke up from my dreams at night with nightmarish visions of top-posting <br>and ... as Netscape and other browser-based mailers encouraged the<br>use of HTML for message composition and formatting, all sorts of <br>unreadable mails spooling across my screen. Teh horrors! <br>
<br>Then I got some jobs in professional high-tech environments<br>where, despite the fact we were all gear-heads working on the <br>command-line all day, we were essentially forced to use Outlook/Exchange, <br>though we had unix mboxes too. And we all grumbled a bit <br>
but over time a few benefits of top-posting became apparent. <br><br>* Top posting preserves atomicity. <br><br>Example: Where [a] and [b] said in the same email by the same person?? <br>----------------------<br>>>>>>> Rob Wrote<br>
>>>>> Dan Wrote<br>>>>> Rob Wrote<br>>>> Jay Wrote<br>>> Rob Wrote<br>> Dan Wrote<br><br>>>>>>> Important observation <br>>>>>> Really bad response [a]<br>
>>>> Blah blah <br>>>> Wall of text <br><br>Observation <br><br>>>>>> Genius comment [b]<br>>>>> Acknowledgement<br>You know, I agree with ... the guy with >>>>> things. <br>
<br>-------------------------<br><br>Had to think about it, right? I've been CC'd on long threads that<br>have been kicked around during trouble-shooting mode before it<br>became obvious I was a stakeholder or area owner that needed <br>
to be engaged. Being able to reconstruct the chain of the email <br>with each response preserved atomically was often times very <br>helpful. The whole history of the conversation was preserved, intact. <br>Sometimes that's really nice. In fact, it's really nice a lot of times. <br>
<br>Moving on... <br>* Top posting is faster - Quite often it's just easier to bang out a response<br>without worrying about all the trimming, formatting, etc... At my <br>previous job I got 300 mails a day. The overhead of in-line posting <br>
conventions would have made that insufferable. <br><br>* Top posting encourages not using confusing pronouns whereas <br>
inline posting often does lead to ambiguity. <br><br>Example: Top Posting <br><br>From: Rob <br>Subject: Next spill cap tactic<br><br>I think increasing the flow rate of the breach by cutting the riser pipe is a <br>
necessary risk to get us to a better initial-condition for the cap. <br>
<br>From: Jay <br>Rob - you know if cut the riser pipe the flow rate will be increased temporarily. <br><br>Example: In-line<br><br>> Jay wrote: <br>> Rob - you know if we cut the riser pipe the flow rate will be increased temporaily<br>
<br>This is a necessary risk to get us to a better initial-condition for the next attempt.<br>==end example <br><br>Analysis: Now - this is somewhat artifically constructed, sure. But note that the <br>in-line response took the previously quoted text as setting the subject, and used<br>
"this" to refer to the subject defined in the previous text. This (heh) happens <br>with top-posting too... but I have noticed over time it happens more with <br>in-line posting. Using previously written text to define the context for a response <br>
that immediately follows is supposed to be one of the vaunted advantages of <br>in-line responses, but in my experience for longer threads it becomes problematic, <br>and thus the "pruning effort" to keep mails shorter and more concise involves <br>
editing or paraphrasing text other people wrote. That's not so bad - but it is <br>time consuming. <br><br>There are other pros and cons, and I bet if you google "inline versus top posting" <br>you will find more hits than google can list in 100 pages. But before you flame <br>
me, please understand I'm not trying to convert anyone here. I'm just pointing out <br>that there are objectively some benefits to top-posting, and some benefits to in-lining - <br>each approach has pros and cons. If you like in-line <br>
posting, in-line away. Given this is a Linux LUG I'll keep in-lining because that <br>seems to be the culture here and I believe in rolling with the culture when choosing<br>a response style. But.... bashing on other people who do top post from a <br>
self-appointed morale high-ground, or just bashing on top-posting in general... <br>I just want to say ... really? You're still fighting that war? You're still in<br>the previous decade? <br>
<br><br>In summary, I'm cool with different opinions. But the outright hostility and <br>immaturity about this particular topic is not <br>becoming to the bright binds that inhabit this list. I'm not trying <br>
to sell anyone one way is better than the other - just hoping some <br>people can see perhaps there are two sides to this coin. I'd rather <br>we flame each other about which text editor is best (Suck it, emacs users! :) ). <br>
<br>Feel free to call me names now, I guess. <br><br>Thanks, <br>-Rob<br>
<br><br><br><br></div></div>