Re: Top posting vs Bottom posting
wrote: Bell C. Christofer EDT, 12:52:54PM at 2009 22, Mar Sun, On
Chris
--
> unnecessary.
> I bottom-post out of force of habit, however, it's archaic and generally
> post, I don't need to see it again.
> unnecessary text (the quoted material). I just read it in the previous
> annoying as it forces the reader to display a bunch of extraneous
> In fact, reading bottom-posted threads in a *modern mail reader* is
> It looks no different than a discussion forum or other normal conversation.
> text.
> Mail 4: A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
> Mail 3: Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> Mail 2: A: Top-posting.
> Mail 1: Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
> Your example looks like this in a threaded mail reader:
> doesn't mean everyone else has to be. ;-)
> which, incidentally, support HTML email). Because *you* are a curmudgeon
> ago. ;-) Top posting works well in a modern threaded mail reader (all of
> This isn't true. Come enter the 21st Century, it started nearly a decade
Shoot.. what the hell happened..??
:-)
As to "untrimmed" posts, I use a little utility named t-prot that hides
overlong quoted material by default so that I never get to see anything
that doesn't fit on one screen .. and in the event I really need to take
a look at it, I'm only a convenient Alt+0 away to make it reappear.
But then, after having struggled with Microsoft Outlook clones for years
I switched to mutt, an archaic mail reader, that I am foolish enough to
think lets me handle fairly large volumes of mail a lot more efficiently
than all that GUI stuff.
CJ
Reply to: