| gabriel rosenkoetter on 16 Jun 2004 19:33:02 -0000 |
|
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:20:32PM -0400, Matt Ayres wrote: > The only reason for Gabe's (rather harsh) reply is to: You've misread my purpose. The reason I harp on this is that top-replies are qualitatively less useful for the community. I've watched quite a few email conversations go horribly askew, including people requesting information that was already presented in the reply trail, because there was too much useless information there. I've also, far too often, gone through the experience of asking someone a series of questions and getting a top-replied "Yes" back (or something similar). These are infuriating problems that are a direct result of top-replies. You'll note that I did also respond to the question at hand at the time. I included the top-reply complaint because answering that simple question had required me to go through the top-reply spaghetti to figure out what was going wrong. *Especially* in the case that you're asking for help from technically skilled Unix-y people, top-replies are a Bad Idea. > As a courtesy to others I will cut off non-relevant portions of the > message below the top quote. Answers to ordered lists will be responded > to in-line with a note at the top of the message signifying this. I think that's a reasonable approach, but I think it's more work for you than just replying infix the way traditional MUAs (that is, pre-Outlook) default to doing (and the way I am here). (I note that you didn't actually trim the useless quoting from the message I'm replying to here.) Bear in mind that I've never suggested that anybody needed my approval to do anything wrt PLUG. I don't care if you run ever email through rot13, but I'll complain about it if I end up passing it back through, finding that I can solve your problem, and then responding. -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgpZShbrHkz9F.pgp
|
|