Re: Top-posting

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

I sincerely

On Apr 11, 2011, at 5:12 PM, bmanning () vacation karoshi com wrote:

> interleaved posting is considered harmful.

Disagree.

Owen

> /bill
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 08:05:51PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > ----- 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