> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Giulio Troccoli
> > <Giulio.Troccoli_at_uk.linedata.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I personally don't reply (on this ML) to emails in HTML or
> > RichText. It takes two seconds to switch
> > > to text-only when writing an email and even Outlook does not
> > convert it back to HTML or RichText.
> > >
> > > We all know why it's not good to top-posting but... (continues
> at
> > the bottom)
> >
> > When Usenet was king, you used text only, did bottom posting,
> > removed
> > excess quotes, and kept your signature down to no more than 4
> > lines.
> >
> > Much of that was due to bandwidth and diskspace limitations.
> Plus,
> > most usenet news readers were command line driven.
> >
> > * Bottom posting allowed you to just quote the stuff you were
> > replying
> > to. This was necessary because no one really kept the whole
> > conversation and downloading the entire thread just so you could
> > see
> > what the poster was replying to could take a while.
> >
> > Since most people bottom posted, someone who top posted simply
> was
> > not
> > following convention. Plus, they usually didn't whittle down the
> > post
> > they were replying to which wasted bandwidth.
> >
> > * In the old days, HTML was discouraged because most people used
> > mailx, elm, or pine which could only handle text. HTML was hard
> to
> > read, or came as an attachment that had to be manually
> downloaded,
> > and
> > then have Mozilla fired up, so you could read your email.
> >
> > However, times have changed:
> >
> > * We no longer have bandwidth limitations. The need for trimming
> > down
> > your quotes simply don't matter. In fact, many email clients like
> > Gmail will fold up quoted material, so you don't even have to
> look
> > at
> > it.
> >
> > * Microsoft Exchange did top posting which was NOT standard back
> > then.
> > Plus, it gave us another reason to yell at Noobs who used
> > proprietary
> > systems. However, most email clients now do top posting, so top
> > posting isn't the exception any more, but the default.
> >
> > Top posting allows you to keep the entire email conversation
> which
> > makes it easy to see what's going on. With top posting, my reply
> is
> > right at the top of my message which makes it easy to see. And,
> if
> > you
> > want to see what I am talking about, you can review the entire
> > conversation below my reply.
> >
> > * Most email clients handle rich text and HTML without problems.
> > Plus,
> > disk storage and bandwidth are no longer as limiting as they once
> > were. My entire email space may take up a few hundred megabytes
> at
> > the
> > most. MP3s take up more room, and I've got 10,000 of those
> sitting
> > on
> > my disk. HTML and Rich Text formatted mail isn't taking up only a
> > tiny
> > fraction of my hard drive. If I run short of room, I don't even
> > bother
> > tossing out email messages.
> >
> > Is there still a need to insist upon "text only" posts if
> everyone
> > can
> > handle HTML and Rich Text?
> >
> > If text only is important, then the mailing list should remove
> > formatting from rich text and HTML posts and reformat them into
> > plain
> > text replies. Almost all mailing list software can handle that. I
> > do
> > it for several non-technical lists where people tend to be
> animated
> > GIF happy, or to make sure people don't post attachments.
> >
> > As for the top posting vs. bottom posting debate: I already
> belong
> > to
> > a fanatical religion which believes that driving to McDonalds on
> a
> > Saturday afternoon and ordering a cheese burger would make me
> > liable
> > for two distinct death penalties. I'm therefore exempt from
> having
> > to
> > hold another fanatical belief. Whether you top post or bottom
> post
> > doesn't bother me one bit as long as you don't wear wool with
> > linen.
> >
> > --
> > David Weintraub
>
> Thanks for your informative post. So two items...
>
> 1. Are we saying the Html email is acceptable on this list? If so,
> can we get the tigris page modified?
>
> 2. I also prefer top-posting replies also. For the reasons you
> stated it is easier to see what the "reply" actually is, and I can
> refer to the original if needed. Outlook does it, Gmail does it...
> the two systems I use for email. That said, do most people here
> prefer bottom/inline replies? Or do most people prefer top-posted
> replies? Has a vote been take recently? I see "please don't top
> post" mailed a lot here... but I wonder if that is because it is
> really preferred... or is that they way it's always been done?
>
> BOb
>
> (Not trying to start a religious war here with item 2, just
> curious.)
>
> My two cents
> Since I read this e-mail at work (for obvious reasons :-), Philips
> uses Outlook and it does top posting by default. I've not found a
> way to get it to do the old e-mail response with the > characters.
> At home yes, since I use mutt to read my e-mail from my personal
> Solaris 10 x86 server. This allows me to ssh into my home box from
> work and read my e-mail. Mutt understands mime separated plain
> text and html sections. Otherwise, I see the HTML code (mostly
> comes from spammers, but some companies send e-mail about orders
> I've placed as HTML only [dummies]).
> So, for this e-mail list, I'm stuck with top posting.
> MB
I use outlook and can bottom post. It's not hard to do. you can set up Outlook to pre-fix a reply with > character. As long as the original email is text it will work fine. If the email you are replying to is Html then the > character shows as a blue bar.
There is a way around this... before you reply to an Html email which you are reading it choose the "Other Actions" and set the format of the email to Text.. then save it. Now when you reply to it you will see your pre-fix character as text rather than that blue bar.
BOb
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2414495
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-11-04 19:43:09 CET