A one or two line summary at the top of an article often saves the
reader from reading the entire thing.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tomas Szepe <[email protected]> wrote:
| > [[email protected]]
| >
| > While I'm anything but a qualified coder I'm willing to test code on
| > this bugger or other help where soundly possible.
|
| Would you people please stop replying above the original messages?
|
| One could say this evil (pioneered by certain silly mail clients btw)
| has been spreading like plague around here lately.
|
| Quoting the lkml FAQ ->
| (REG) And please reply after the quoted text, not before it (as per RFC
| 1855). It's very confusing to see a reply before the quoted context.
What does it say about changing the topic without changing the header?
| And
| it's embarrassing: it makes you look like a newbie. Change your mailer if
| necessary, if the one you have makes it hard to do reply-after-quoting.
| I know some people like to quote the entire message they are replying to,
| so they put their reply right at the top so people won't give up after the
| first page of quoted material. Don't do it. It's annoying. Just learn to
| stop quoting everything. No-one wants to see it all anyway (list archives
| allow people to see everything if they missed it). You're not helping
| yourself anyway, as you're more likely to be ignored if you
| reply-before-quoting.
Seriously, you have a point, but his two liner did not require the
context of the bulk of the post. There have been some far worse choices
of top posting, and the main reason for not top posting is because it's
hard to read *when context is needed*.
Your point is good, I think you could have picked a number of better
examples to make it.
--
bill davidsen <[email protected]>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
> [[email protected]]
>
> | Quoting the lkml FAQ ->
> | (REG) And please reply after the quoted text, not before it (as per RFC
> | 1855). It's very confusing to see a reply before the quoted context.
>
> What does it say about changing the topic without changing the header?
Yup, sorry about that.
> Your point is good, I think you could have picked a number of better
> examples to make it.
Annoyance meter shows: murder
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105873583008314&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105768377328478&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105880921003608&w=2
Hedrick flavor:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105765755000781&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105898862213443&w=2
--
Tomas Szepe <[email protected]>
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 17:32, bill davidsen wrote:
> A one or two line summary at the top of an article often saves the
> reader from reading the entire thing.
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tomas Szepe <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped]
> |
> | Would you people please stop replying above the original messages?
> |
> | One could say this evil (pioneered by certain silly mail clients btw)
> | has been spreading like plague around here lately.
> |
> | Quoting the lkml FAQ ->
> | (REG) And please reply after the quoted text, not before it (as per RFC
> | 1855). It's very confusing to see a reply before the quoted context.
>
[snipped]
>
> | And
> | it's embarrassing: it makes you look like a newbie. Change your mailer if
> | necessary, if the one you have makes it hard to do reply-after-quoting.
> | I know some people like to quote the entire message they are replying to,
> | so they put their reply right at the top so people won't give up after the
> | first page of quoted material. Don't do it. It's annoying. Just learn to
> | stop quoting everything. No-one wants to see it all anyway (list archives
> | allow people to see everything if they missed it). You're not helping
> | yourself anyway, as you're more likely to be ignored if you
> | reply-before-quoting.
>
> Seriously, you have a point, but his two liner did not require the
> context of the bulk of the post. There have been some far worse choices
> of top posting, and the main reason for not top posting is because it's
> hard to read *when context is needed*.
>
> Your point is good, I think you could have picked a number of better
> examples to make it.
More exposition regarding top vs bottom posting: Replying at the bottom
results in an easily parseable tree. Consider the following conversation
where everyone replies at the bottom.
-------------------------------
To: [email protected]
From: Delta <[email protected]>
Subj: foo.c does not compile, what to do?
Charlie wrote:
> Able wrote:
> > Baker wrote:
> > > Able wrote:
> > > > Baker wrote:
> > > > > Able wrote:
> > > > > > My driver foo.c does not compile. What can I do?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Able
> > > > > >
> > > > > It hasn't been ported yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Baker
> > > > >
> > > > I really really need this.
> > > >
> > > > Able
> > > >
> > > Well then, either fix it yourself or find someone who can.
> > >
> > > Baker
> > >
> > But I can't fix it myself. I don't know how.
> >
> > Able
> >
> I think Delta worked on this last year. Delta, can you help?
>
> Charlie
>
Yeah I looked at that thing and ran away screaming. Good luck.
Delta
-------------
Now, look at the same conversation where Able replies at the top.
-------------------------------
To: [email protected]
From: Delta <[email protected]>
Subj: foo.c does not compile, what to do?
Charlie wrote:
> Able wrote:
> > But I can't fix it myself. I don't know how.
> >
> > Able
> >
> > Baker wrote:
> > > Able wrote:
> > > > I really really need this.
> > > >
> > > > Able
> > > >
> > > > Baker wrote:
> > > > > Able wrote:
> > > > > > My driver foo.c does not compile. What can I do?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Able
> > > > > >
> > > > > It hasn't been ported yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Baker
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > Well then, either fix it yourself or find someone who can.
> > >
> > > Baker
> > >
> >
> I think Delta worked on this last year. Delta, can you help?
>
> Charlie
>
Yeah I looked at that thing and ran away screaming. Good luck.
Delta
-------------
The result is a tangled mess. Untangling that mess wastes time.
Replying at the top wastes people's time trying to understand the
conversation.
For a theoretical discussion of why mixing top and bottom agglutination
is wrong, Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct" has a chapter on how
differing languages build up trees. Some add from the left, some from
the right, but arbitrarily mixing the two in the same sentence either
results in an ambiguity or what he calls "fruit salad".
Please reply at the bottom.
Steven
[email protected] (bill davidsen) writes:
> Seriously, you have a point, but his two liner did not require the
> context of the bulk of the post. There have been some far worse choices
> of top posting, and the main reason for not top posting is because it's
> hard to read *when context is needed*.
If context is not needed, it should be deleted.
Thus spake Steven Cole ([email protected]):
> On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 17:32, bill davidsen wrote:
> > A one or two line summary at the top of an article often saves the
> > reader from reading the entire thing.
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Tomas Szepe <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snipped]
> > |
> > | Would you people please stop replying above the original messages?
> > |
> > | One could say this evil (pioneered by certain silly mail clients btw)
> > | has been spreading like plague around here lately.
> > |
> > | Quoting the lkml FAQ ->
> > | (REG) And please reply after the quoted text, not before it (as per RFC
> > | 1855). It's very confusing to see a reply before the quoted context.
> >
> [snipped]
> >
> > | And
> > | it's embarrassing: it makes you look like a newbie. Change your mailer if
> > | necessary, if the one you have makes it hard to do reply-after-quoting.
> > | I know some people like to quote the entire message they are replying to,
> > | so they put their reply right at the top so people won't give up after the
> > | first page of quoted material. Don't do it. It's annoying. Just learn to
> > | stop quoting everything. No-one wants to see it all anyway (list archives
> > | allow people to see everything if they missed it). You're not helping
> > | yourself anyway, as you're more likely to be ignored if you
> > | reply-before-quoting.
> >
> > Seriously, you have a point, but his two liner did not require the
> > context of the bulk of the post. There have been some far worse choices
> > of top posting, and the main reason for not top posting is because it's
> > hard to read *when context is needed*.
> >
> > Your point is good, I think you could have picked a number of better
> > examples to make it.
>
> More exposition regarding top vs bottom posting: Replying at the bottom
> results in an easily parseable tree. Consider the following conversation
> where everyone replies at the bottom.
On the other hand if everyone posted at the top it would be considerably
easier reading for those who have been following the conversation
without having to scroll down and figure out where comments and the
conversation is at. You could read just the top post and go from there.
For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
scroll up. When the next post comes in they just read the top post
again instead of scrolling down to the bottom or middle somewhere to
figure out what/when/where.
Using VI and Mutt, the cursor starts at the top not the bottom or
anywhere in the middle so there's and ease of use for CLI mail readers
as well instead of the GUI oriented.
:wq!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Harris | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B
@ x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu
DISCLAIMER:
These are MY OPINIONS ALONE. I speak for no-one else.
Diagnosis: witzelsucht
IPv6 = [email protected] http://ipv6.rdlg.net
IPv4 = [email protected] http://www.rdlg.net
Robert L. Harris wrote:
(snip a lot)
> Using VI and Mutt, the cursor starts at the top not the bottom or
> anywhere in the middle so there's and ease of use for CLI mail readers
> as well instead of the GUI oriented.
That is to let you start snipping all unrelated quoted text. :-(
Bas.
> [[email protected]]
>
> On the other hand if everyone posted at the top it would be considerably
> easier reading for those who have been following the conversation
> without having to scroll down and figure out where comments and the
> conversation is at.
So how do you context-quote when replying at the top?
Original text:
Argument A.
Argument B.
Reply:
Reply intro text.
Reaction A.
> Argument A.
Reaction B.
> Argument B.
I don't think so. Awkward (mixing directions) and confusing.
> For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
> scroll up.
Ever actually tried doing that? IMHO it's not half as practical and
natural as reading from the top down. (You have to keep scrolling,
searching for block starts.)
--
Tomas Szepe <[email protected]>
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 09:47, Robert L. Harris wrote:
>
> Thus spake Steven Cole ([email protected]):
[snippage]
> >
> > More exposition regarding top vs bottom posting: Replying at the bottom
> > results in an easily parseable tree. Consider the following conversation
> > where everyone replies at the bottom.
>
>
> On the other hand if everyone posted at the top it would be considerably
> easier reading for those who have been following the conversation
> without having to scroll down and figure out where comments and the
> conversation is at. You could read just the top post and go from there.
> For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
> scroll up. When the next post comes in they just read the top post
> again instead of scrolling down to the bottom or middle somewhere to
> figure out what/when/where.
>
> Using VI and Mutt, the cursor starts at the top not the bottom or
> anywhere in the middle so there's and ease of use for CLI mail readers
> as well instead of the GUI oriented.
>
>
> :wq!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Robert L. Harris | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B
Using a consistent agglutination policy results in more easily
understandable conversations. You've done a good job advocating top
posting, but until recently the linux-kernel norm was bottom posting.
The mix of the two is what is being objected to. Standards exist for
good reasons, and Tomas pointed out RFC 1855 and the lkml FAQ.
Please reply at the bottom. Thanks.
Steven
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 10:03, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > [[email protected]]
> >
> > On the other hand if everyone posted at the top it would be considerably
> > easier reading for those who have been following the conversation
> > without having to scroll down and figure out where comments and the
> > conversation is at.
>
> So how do you context-quote when replying at the top?
>
> Original text:
>
> Argument A.
> Argument B.
>
> Reply:
>
> Reply intro text.
>
> Reaction A.
> > Argument A.
>
> Reaction B.
> > Argument B.
>
> I don't think so. Awkward (mixing directions) and confusing.
>
> > For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
> > scroll up.
>
> Ever actually tried doing that? IMHO it's not half as practical and
> natural as reading from the top down. (You have to keep scrolling,
> searching for block starts.)
I think Tomas has just hit upon why top posting is fundamentally wrong.
Indo-European languages read left to right, Semitic languages read right
to left, and some Oriental languages read top to bottom, but no human
languages I'm aware of read bottom to top.
Consider a Cafe sign:
C
a
f
e
That is readable. How about:
e
f
a
C
Not very readable unless you spend extra processing time to think about
it. Reading bottom to top is counter-intuitive and wastes time. Speaking
of which, apologies to all who feel they've wasted time by reading this.
Hmm, it looks like you top-posters out there are in good company.
Marcelo seems to be taking the lead. Grumble.
Steven
Thus spake Steven Cole ([email protected]):
> On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 10:03, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > > [[email protected]]
> > >
> > > On the other hand if everyone posted at the top it would be considerably
> > > easier reading for those who have been following the conversation
> > > without having to scroll down and figure out where comments and the
> > > conversation is at.
> >
> > So how do you context-quote when replying at the top?
> >
> > Original text:
> >
> > Argument A.
> > Argument B.
> >
> > Reply:
> >
> > Reply intro text.
> >
> > Reaction A.
> > > Argument A.
> >
> > Reaction B.
> > > Argument B.
> >
> > I don't think so. Awkward (mixing directions) and confusing.
> >
> > > For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
> > > scroll up.
> >
> > Ever actually tried doing that? IMHO it's not half as practical and
> > natural as reading from the top down. (You have to keep scrolling,
> > searching for block starts.)
>
> I think Tomas has just hit upon why top posting is fundamentally wrong.
>
> Indo-European languages read left to right, Semitic languages read right
> to left, and some Oriental languages read top to bottom, but no human
> languages I'm aware of read bottom to top.
>
> Consider a Cafe sign:
>
> C
> a
> f
> e
>
> That is readable. How about:
>
> e
> f
> a
> C
>
> Not very readable unless you spend extra processing time to think about
> it. Reading bottom to top is counter-intuitive and wastes time. Speaking
> of which, apologies to all who feel they've wasted time by reading this.
>
> Hmm, it looks like you top-posters out there are in good company.
> Marcelo seems to be taking the lead. Grumble.
>
I'm not saying you should write your paragraphs backwards such as your
Cafe sign. It's more of an organizational thing than an order of
reading thing. When I sort my ToDo list I put the things most important
on top, when I sort my mail, I put the things I need to read on top,
etc. This way the most important piece (the newest comment in this
case) is on top and I don't have to go digging for it.
Not everyone puts inline responses and they're not always needed. If
you place some a good idea is one a co-worker uses:
See inline comments below.
4 works, 1 line. Tells us there is content he added mixed in.
Otherwise I don't have to waste time and effort digging through the
rants, flames and fluff wondering "is there something down here?"...
:wq!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Harris | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B
@ x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu
DISCLAIMER:
These are MY OPINIONS ALONE. I speak for no-one else.
Diagnosis: witzelsucht
IPv6 = [email protected] http://ipv6.rdlg.net
IPv4 = [email protected] http://www.rdlg.net
> Not very readable unless you spend extra processing time to think about
> it. Reading bottom to top is counter-intuitive and wastes time. Speaking
> of which, apologies to all who feel they've wasted time by reading this.
Actually, directions painted onto roads are often bottom to top in letter
orientation...
W
O
L
S
etc... every orientation has its place, though not necessarilly in this
post =P
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 11:15, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> Thus spake Steven Cole ([email protected]):
>
> > On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 10:03, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > > > [[email protected]]
[snipped]
> > >
> > > > For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
> > > > scroll up.
> > >
> > > Ever actually tried doing that? IMHO it's not half as practical and
> > > natural as reading from the top down. (You have to keep scrolling,
> > > searching for block starts.)
> >
> > I think Tomas has just hit upon why top posting is fundamentally wrong.
> >
> > Indo-European languages read left to right, Semitic languages read right
> > to left, and some Oriental languages read top to bottom, but no human
> > languages I'm aware of read bottom to top.
> >
[more snippage]
>
> I'm not saying you should write your paragraphs backwards such as your
> Cafe sign. It's more of an organizational thing than an order of
> reading thing. When I sort my ToDo list I put the things most important
> on top, when I sort my mail, I put the things I need to read on top,
> etc. This way the most important piece (the newest comment in this
> case) is on top and I don't have to go digging for it.
Reverse chronological lists are another example of where top
agglutination provides convenience. But the lower, earlier part remains
and doesn't get snipped. It doesn't seem to be the same as a multi-way
conversation where earlier parts become irrelevant to later parts.
>
> Not everyone puts inline responses and they're not always needed. If
> you place some a good idea is one a co-worker uses:
>
> See inline comments below.
>
> 4 works, 1 line. Tells us there is content he added mixed in.
> Otherwise I don't have to waste time and effort digging through the
> rants, flames and fluff wondering "is there something down here?"...
The ease of tacking on your comment to the top means that you will not
be motivated to snip all the "rants, flames and fluff" below, so all
that (usually) irrelevant flotsam gets sent over and over again.
At home, I'm on a 56k dialup, and getting the days worth of lkml
messages takes a while. Cutting down on unnecessary verbage which can
easily be retrieved if needed is definitely appreciated.
Steven
> At home, I'm on a 56k dialup, and getting the days worth of lkml
> messages takes a while.
If you're collecting mail via POP, try switching to a protocol like a
streamed SMTP push, if your ISP supports it - collecting a lot of
small mails, which is usually what this list is, using POP generally
won't use anywhere near the full capacity of the link, because there
is so much protocol overhead. Over a satellite link, it's even worse,
because of the high latency.
> Cutting down on unnecessary verbage which can easily be retrieved if
> needed is definitely appreciated.
Can we all, please, at least do things like not repeatedly quoting the
list's four-line signature, and not quoting things like .config files?
There surely can't be any disagreements about that :-).
John.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:47:32AM -0400, Robert L. Harris wrote:
*51 lines of unnecessary quoting snipped*
> > More exposition regarding top vs bottom posting: Replying at the bottom
> > results in an easily parseable tree. Consider the following conversation
> > where everyone replies at the bottom.
>
> On the other hand if everyone posted at the top it would be considerably
> easier reading for those who have been following the conversation
> without having to scroll down and figure out where comments and the
> conversation is at. You could read just the top post and go from there.
That's why you snip your quoting appropriately.
> For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
> scroll up. When the next post comes in they just read the top post
Or rather, scroll to somewhere near the bottom, scroll down some, scroll
up to the next message, scroll down some, scroll up, scroll down, etc.
All depends on how the replies were done.
> again instead of scrolling down to the bottom or middle somewhere to
> figure out what/when/where.
People who know how to trim quoting appropriately make this a non-issue.
Generally the reply begins on the first visible page.
The other advantage is that going past the bits of relevant quoted text,
even just to quickly pass your eyes over them, gives you a nice reminder
of what is being replied to and makes the subject fresher in your mind.
It also helps clue you into what the sender is really replying to so that
there's (potentially) less misunderstanding.
> Using VI and Mutt, the cursor starts at the top not the bottom or
> anywhere in the middle so there's and ease of use for CLI mail readers
> as well instead of the GUI oriented.
I use mutt and vim. This is a non-point. The spacebar works. With vi
ndd works for quote removal (where n is the number of lines). For vim
you have shift-v to begin your selection and just move the cursor down
to where you want to cut. If the person you're replying to did their
job then you doing yours is simplicity in itself. If they don't then
it becomes more painful but it still is not difficult (or complex -
just takes a wee bit longer).
--
"How can I not love the Americans? They helped me with a flat tire the
other day," he said.
- http://tinyurl.com/h6fo
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> On the other hand if everyone posted at the top it would be considerably
> easier reading for those who have been following the conversation
> without having to scroll down and figure out where comments and the
> conversation is at. You could read just the top post and go from there.
> For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
> scroll up. When the next post comes in they just read the top post
> again instead of scrolling down to the bottom or middle somewhere to
> figure out what/when/where.
>
> Using VI and Mutt, the cursor starts at the top not the bottom or
> anywhere in the middle so there's and ease of use for CLI mail readers
> as well instead of the GUI oriented.
I tried to make the point that top posting is useful when (and only when)
it is short and does not require the context of the previous posts, it
saves the reader time to have it all up front.
Example 1:
Subject: 2.6.0-test2-ac1 OOPS with ZIP and DVD
Appropriate top post:
Fixed in 2.6.0-test2-ac2
Why:
Topic is dead, problem over, casual reader spends no more time on it
Example 2:
Subject: Odd O(1) behaviour with SCSI tape and serial PPP
Appropriate top post:
The measurements Jonas requested appear below interspersed with his
questions.
Why:
If you want details you won't miss this post, if you are only
concerned with patches or discussion of root cause you might skip
this one.
A short top post takes the place of the Summary header most folks can't
generate or see. Used properly it's a benefit, used as the examples Thomas
posted it's disgusting.
--
bill davidsen <[email protected]>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 09:24:13AM +1000, CaT wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:47:32AM -0400, Robert L. Harris wrote:
[snip]
> > Using VI and Mutt, the cursor starts at the top not the bottom or
> > anywhere in the middle so there's and ease of use for CLI mail readers
> > as well instead of the GUI oriented.
>
> I use mutt and vim. This is a non-point. The spacebar works. With vi
> ndd works for quote removal (where n is the number of lines). For vim
> you have shift-v to begin your selection and just move the cursor down
> to where you want to cut. If the person you're replying to did their
> job then you doing yours is simplicity in itself. If they don't then
> it becomes more painful but it still is not difficult (or complex -
> just takes a wee bit longer).
And if the quoting is FRC compliant (as above) both vim and
mutt's built-in pager will render the quotes in a succession
of colors according to depth making them even easier to
discern. And if paragraph reformatting is needed due to
someone's misbehavior re long lines vim's autoindent will
preserve the quoting correctly.
--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: [email protected]
Remember Cernan and Schmitt
jw schultz <[email protected]> writes:
> if the quoting is FRC compliant both vim and mutt's built-in pager
> will render the quotes in a succession of colors according to depth
> making them even easier to discern. if paragraph reformatting is
> needed due to someone's misbehavior re long lines vim's autoindent
> will preserve the quoting correctly.
Gnus (in emacs) will do both of those things too.
It also has an option to hide quoted sections, replacing them with a
little button you can use to see the text (mutt can hide quoted text
too, but it leaves no indicator in its place, which makes the result
quite confusing).
-Miles
--
"Most attacks seem to take place at night, during a rainstorm, uphill,
where four map sheets join." -- Anon. British Officer in WW I
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:57:32 +0100, John Bradford wrote:
> Can we all, please, at least do things like not repeatedly quoting the
> list's four-line signature, and not quoting things like .config files?
One more: don't answer to people directly, only thru the list.
It is quite annoying to receive the same message twice, especially if
on a flamewar...
Actually I was quite surprised to learn these rules aren't
followed here.
--
_ Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra +41 (21) 648 11 34
/ \ http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +41 (78) 778 11 34
\ / Answer to the list, not to me directly! +55 (11) 5686 2219
/ \ Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro
> > Can we all, please, at least do things like not repeatedly quoting the
> > list's four-line signature, and not quoting things like .config files?
>
> One more: don't answer to people directly, only thru the list.
> It is quite annoying to receive the same message twice, especially if
> on a flamewar...
>
> Actually I was quite surprised to learn these rules aren't
> followed here.
No, that is not the etiquette on this list, please _don't_ break the
CC list when replying - the FAQ particularly mentions this in section
5.3. Breaking the CC list is very likely to reduce your chances of a
reply from a lot of developers.
The main reason for this is that as LKML is a high volume mailing
list, a lot of developers will simply delete list mail unread if they
are busy, assuming that anything that the poster really wanted them to
see would be mailed directly to them, as well as to the list.
Receiving the same message twice is generally a non-issue - the list
is high-volume anyway, so the odd duplicate message won't use up that
much extra bandwidth.
John.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 09:35:20PM +0100, John Bradford wrote:
> > > Can we all, please, at least do things like not repeatedly quoting the
> > > list's four-line signature, and not quoting things like .config files?
And user sigs, confidentiality declarations, etc.
> >
> > One more: don't answer to people directly, only thru the list.
> > It is quite annoying to receive the same message twice, especially if
> > on a flamewar...
> >
> > Actually I was quite surprised to learn these rules aren't
> > followed here.
>
> No, that is not the etiquette on this list, please _don't_ break the
> CC list when replying - the FAQ particularly mentions this in section
> 5.3. Breaking the CC list is very likely to reduce your chances of a
> reply from a lot of developers.
>
[snip]
>
> Receiving the same message twice is generally a non-issue - the list
> is high-volume anyway, so the odd duplicate message won't use up that
> much extra bandwidth.
And can be easily dealt with in procmail. After filing the
mailing list messages i trashcan any addressed to the lists.
Then the only time i complain is when they are sent under
seperate headers.
--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: [email protected]
Remember Cernan and Schmitt