On Thu, July 23, 2015 8:43 am, Windsor Dave (AdP/TEF7) wrote:>>-----Original Message----- >>From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On >> Behalf Of Leon Fauster >>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 6:20 PM >>To: CentOS mailing list >>Subject: Re: [CentOS] rsyslog.conf >> >>Am 22.07.2015 um 17:41 schrieb Windsor Dave (AdP/TEF7) >> <Dave.Windsor at us.bosch.com>: >>> Sorry for the top post, Outlook defaults strike again..... >> >>Outlook forces you to write above ? :-) >> >>-- >>LF > > > Perhaps I should say instead that it "strongly encourages" top posting, > and all our internal emails follow that convention. > > It's habit-forming.... :-) >Well, my habit for regular e-mail exchange is "top posting" thus the person reads my message thus is right to the point why this particular message message was sent in a first place... But when mail lists are concerned, I do an opposite, that is I follow mail lists conventions. I never thought about rationale behind them, I'm just following them. I believe, if some day someone gives reasons why top posting is bad in case of mail lists it will really be great. The only reason I can come up with myself would be: whoever reads message received through mail lists usually has no idea about previous exchange in this thread, thus needs all exchange in chronological order. Which I'm not certain is a good reason, so those who know and insists strongly about "no top posting" are encouraged to give others the reasons behind that. Again, I'm not "top posting" on the lists. However, _this_ ("top posting") is my regular way in private exchange (and it has good reasons behind it). Valeri ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Am 23.07.2015 um 16:34 schrieb Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu>:> > On Thu, July 23, 2015 8:43 am, Windsor Dave (AdP/TEF7) wrote: >> >> Perhaps I should say instead that it "strongly encourages" top posting, >> and all our internal emails follow that convention. >> >> It's habit-forming.... :-) >> > > Well, my habit for regular e-mail exchange is "top posting" thus the > person reads my message thus is right to the point why this particular > message message was sent in a first place... But when mail lists are > concerned, I do an opposite, that is I follow mail lists conventions. I > never thought about rationale behind them, I'm just following them. I > believe, if some day someone gives reasons why top posting is bad in case > of mail lists it will really be great. The only reason I can come up with > myself would be: whoever reads message received through mail lists usually > has no idea about previous exchange in this thread, thus needs all > exchange in chronological order. Which I'm not certain is a good reason, > so those who know and insists strongly about "no top posting" are > encouraged to give others the reasons behind that. Again, I'm not "top > posting" on the lists. However, _this_ ("top posting") is my regular way > in private exchange (and it has good reasons behind it).well, as you wrote: ... because in conventional spelling systems of western languages, text is written from the top to the bottom (applies also for reading). To rephrase it: the "usability" is higher while reading bottom posted messages. Furthermore stripping is normally done more (footers, disclaimers etc. disappears) when bottom posted. This cleans the context additionally ... The problem gets worse when both styles are mixed. Try to read a correspondence from a year ago in such a style. Its horrible ... :-) -- LF
On 07/23/2015 09:34 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:> > On Thu, July 23, 2015 8:43 am, Windsor Dave (AdP/TEF7) wrote: >>> -----Original Message-----<snip>>>>> Sorry for the top post, Outlook defaults strike again..... >>> >>> Outlook forces you to write above ? :-)<snip>>> >> Perhaps I should say instead that it "strongly encourages" top posting, >> and all our internal emails follow that convention. >> >> It's habit-forming.... :-) > > Well, my habit for regular e-mail exchange is "top posting" thus the > person reads my message thus is right to the point why this particular > message message was sent in a first place... But when mail lists are > concerned, I do an opposite, that is I follow mail lists conventions. I > never thought about rationale behind them, I'm just following them. I > believe, if some day someone gives reasons why top posting is bad in case > of mail lists it will really be great. The only reason I can come up with > myself would be: whoever reads message received through mail lists usually > has no idea about previous exchange in this thread, thus needs all > exchange in chronological order. Which I'm not certain is a good reason, > so those who know and insists strongly about "no top posting" are > encouraged to give others the reasons behind that. Again, I'm not "top > posting" on the lists. However, _this_ ("top posting") is my regular way > in private exchange (and it has good reasons behind it).The main reason actually is chronological order. But not just for the reply .. but for IN-LINE posting. In a discussion where you need to make points in-line and where you only need some of and not all of the other posts, something that happens frequently on mailing lists, it is very much easier to read that type of collaborated message in chronological order. I mean, you don't read a book or a newspaper article or a blog post from bottom to top, right? Why would you read communications from bottom to top? And it is not really even bottom to top. If you take 4 emails of 10 lines each (and 40 lines total) .. it is 75% down to 100% (original mail)... then up to 50% and read down to 75% (2nd mail), then up to 25% and read down to 50%, then up to 0% and read down to 25%. What if someone made you read blog posts that way, or books or newspaper articles? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20150723/f94ae350/attachment-0001.sig>
On Thu, July 23, 2015 10:45 am, Johnny Hughes wrote:> On 07/23/2015 09:34 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> >> On Thu, July 23, 2015 8:43 am, Windsor Dave (AdP/TEF7) wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- > <snip> >>>>> Sorry for the top post, Outlook defaults strike again..... >>>> >>>> Outlook forces you to write above ? :-) > <snip> >>> >>> Perhaps I should say instead that it "strongly encourages" top posting, >>> and all our internal emails follow that convention. >>> >>> It's habit-forming.... :-) >> >> Well, my habit for regular e-mail exchange is "top posting" thus the >> person reads my message thus is right to the point why this particular >> message message was sent in a first place... But when mail lists are >> concerned, I do an opposite, that is I follow mail lists conventions. I >> never thought about rationale behind them, I'm just following them. I >> believe, if some day someone gives reasons why top posting is bad in >> case >> of mail lists it will really be great. The only reason I can come up >> with >> myself would be: whoever reads message received through mail lists >> usually >> has no idea about previous exchange in this thread, thus needs all >> exchange in chronological order. Which I'm not certain is a good reason, >> so those who know and insists strongly about "no top posting" are >> encouraged to give others the reasons behind that. Again, I'm not "top >> posting" on the lists. However, _this_ ("top posting") is my regular way >> in private exchange (and it has good reasons behind it). > > The main reason actually is chronological order. But not just for the > reply .. but for IN-LINE posting. > > In a discussion where you need to make points in-line and where you only > need some of and not all of the other posts, something that happens > frequently on mailing lists, it is very much easier to read that type of > collaborated message in chronological order. > > I mean, you don't read a book or a newspaper article or a blog post from > bottom to top, right? Why would you read communications from bottom to > top? And it is not really even bottom to top. If you take 4 emails of > 10 lines each (and 40 lines total) .. it is 75% down to 100% (original > mail)... then up to 50% and read down to 75% (2nd mail), then up to 25% > and read down to 50%, then up to 0% and read down to 25%. What if > someone made you read blog posts that way, or books or newspaper articles? >OK, the shortest I can re-formulate your message is: on mail lists we are collectively writing the book for someone else to read (much less communicating with each other in real time ;-) Any accepted convention is better than no convention: save everybody's time. Suits me (as far as mail lists are concerned). Valeri ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++