[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Removing the indent-string quote marker '>' in emails.

On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 06:55:59AM EST, Camaleón wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:50:47 -0500, Chris Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 02:33:32PM EST, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> >> Finding technical solutions to a social problems? Good luck!
> > 
> > Of course not, first we use the techical to determine who's who and
> > who's doing what and then we shoot them, at dawn, preferably...
> > 
> > More to the point, couldn't the list managing program identify those
> > messages and email back the perps that it is very very naughty and they
> > need to stop doing it immediately, or else be spanked or even forcibly
> > unsubscribed from the list?
> I agree with Andrei.
> The best approach for such situation is just getting the user to be aware 
> of what is he/she doing. They usually do know nothing about e-mail 
> threads and mailing list format so telling them about the benefits of 
> having their MUA configured in the right way is usually just enough.
> In a corporate environment, "threading" is not much used with normal 
> correspondece and e-mail clients are configured to use html format, no 
> quoting in replies and to posting, just opposite the way it should be 
> done for mailing lists.
> Educating them it always better than "shooting" them ;-)

What I had in mind was more along the lines of a short description of
the problem in 'neutral but no uncertain terms' and why it causes grief
in a threaded context such as mailing lists, something fairly 'official'
posted somewhere online that we could refer them to.

For all I know, such resource already exists, and if not I'm surprised
it doesn't.

And though it's probably not feasible, having the list's managing
software inform posters automatically might even be more productive.

Since I was not too optimistic as to that all that happening any time
soon, I recommended spanking, banning.. did I actually say shooting..

Oh, well..

HNY, anyways..


Reply to: