It''s getting downright ridiculous. The digest people will kiss you. Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
On Thu, June 10, 2010 12:26, pattonme at yahoo.com wrote:> It''s getting downright ridiculous. The digest people will kiss you.But those reading via individual message email quite possibly will not. Quoting at least what you''re actually responding to is crucial to making sense out here. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
> > It''s getting downright ridiculous. The digest people will kiss you. > > But those reading via individual message email quite possibly will > not. Quoting at least what you''re actually responding to is crucial to > making sense out here.The problem is all the top-posts and similar bottom-posts where everything in the thread is kept. This is not good netiquette, even in 2010. Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 roy at karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et element?rt imperativ for alle pedagoger ? unng? eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer p? norsk.
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:> > The problem is all the top-posts and similar bottom-posts where > everything in the thread is kept. This is not good netiquette, even > in 2010.I think that you may notice that most of the perpetrators are from Gmail. It seems that Gmail is very good at hiding existing text in its user interface so people think nothing of including most/all of the email they are replying to. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
I trimmed, and then got complained at by a mailing list user that the context of what I was replying to was missing. Can''t win :P -- This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:> I think that you may notice that most of the perpetrators are from Gmail. > ?It seems that Gmail is very good at hiding existing text in its user > interface so people think nothing of including most/all of the email they > are replying to.Yeah, it''s a major pet peeve of mine with gmail. Both work and freaks.com use Google Apps for mail, and I''ve caught myself failing to trim replies a few times. When you know everyone reading it has the same quoted text hiding, it''s easy to get lazy. -B -- Brandon High : bhigh at freaks.com
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:33 AM, Brandon High <bhigh at freaks.com> wrote:> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Bob Friesenhahn > <bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: >> I think that you may notice that most of the perpetrators are from Gmail. >> ?It seems that Gmail is very good at hiding existing text in its user >> interface so people think nothing of including most/all of the email they >> are replying to. > > Yeah, it''s a major pet peeve of mine with gmail. Both work and > freaks.com use Google Apps for mail, and I''ve caught myself failing to > trim replies a few times. > > When you know everyone reading it has the same quoted text hiding, > it''s easy to get lazy.Another thing that Gmail does that I find infuriating, is that it mucks with the formatting. For some reason it, and to be fair, Outlook as well, seem to think that they know how a message needs to be formatted better than I do. fpsm
On Jun 11, 2010, at 2:07 AM, Dave Koelmeyer <davekoelmeyer at me.com> wrote:> I trimmed, and then got complained at by a mailing list user that > the context of what I was replying to was missing. Can''t win :PIf at a minimum one trims the disclaimers, footers and signatures, that''s better then nothing. On long threads with inlined comments, think about keeping the previous 2 comments before or trimming anything 3 levels of indents or more. Of course that''s just my general rule of thumb and different discussions require different quotings, but just being mindful is often enough. -Ross
On 6/10/10 11:07 PM -0700 Dave Koelmeyer wrote:> I trimmed, and then got complained at by a mailing list user that the > context of what I was replying to was missing. Can''t win :PThere''s a big difference between trim and remove. The worst is when people quote 3-4 paragraphs, respond inline to ONE of the points, then leave the rest of a long email, signature and all, quoted at the end. ugh. This list is the worst one that I am on for that kind of behavior. Makes me wonder how those folks can manage complex storage systems when they cannot even organize their thoughts efficiently.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Frank Cusack <frank+lists/zfs at linetwo.net>wrote:> This list is the worst one that I am on for that kind of behavior. Makes > me wonder how those folks can manage complex storage systems when they > cannot even organize their thoughts efficiently.As mentioned earlier, gmail may be behind a lot of this. It''s very good at hiding quoted text from the person writing replies. Many, many, many screens of text can be hidden behind a single "show quoted text" link. Making it appear as if there''s only a tiny bit of text. It even does it when reading messages if there are more then 3 or 4 levels of quoting (all but the top 2 or 3 are hidden). For reading, it''s great. For writing, it''s handy. For others, it''s not such a great feature. :) Like everything, it''s all about the tools. Some people have tools that hide a lot of the complexity that makes everything super simple and easy for them ... and a royal pain for everyone else (kinda like Windows). :) In the end, it all comes down to user education. -- Freddie Cash fjwcash at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100611/81bd7ff2/attachment.html>
> Another thing that Gmail does that I find infuriating, is that it > mucks with the formatting. For some reason it, and to be fair, Outlook > as well, seem to think that they know how a message needs to be > formatted better than I do.Try doing inline quoting/response with Outlook, where you quote one section, reply, quote again, etc. It''s impossible. You can''t split up the quoted section to add new text - no way, no how. Very infuriating. It''s like Outlook was *designed* to force people to top post. It reminds me of the old joke: "Because people read from top to bottom." "Why is top-posting stupid?" #include ms-rant.std ---------- Learn more about Merchant Link at www.merchantlink.com. THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL. This e-mail message and any attachments are proprietary and confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not print, distribute, or copy this message or any attachments. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachments from your computer.
>-----Original Message----- >From: Linder, Doug >Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 12:53 PM > >Try doing inline quoting/response with Outlook, where you quote onesection,>reply, quote again, etc. It''s impossible. You can''t split up the quotedsection to>add new text - no way, no how. Very infuriating. It''s like Outlook was >*designed* to force people to top post. >Hi Doug. I use Outlook too, and you are right, it is a major PITA. I was hoping that OL2010 was going to solve the problem, but it doesn''t :( The only way I can get it to sort of work is by "editing" the HTML message, and saving it as plain text, then replying to that. If you try to reply to an HTML formatted message, it is awful. I also manually clean up some of the header information below "Original Message". Have a great weekend! Geoff
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Linder, Doug <Doug.Linder at merchantlink.com> wrote:>> Another thing that Gmail does that I find infuriating, is that it >> mucks with the formatting. For some reason it, and to be fair, Outlook >> as well, seem to think that they know how a message needs to be >> formatted better than I do. > > Try doing inline quoting/response with Outlook, where you quote one section, reply, quote again, etc. ?It''s impossible. ?You can''t split up the quoted section to add new text - no way, no how. ?Very infuriating. ?It''s like Outlook was *designed* to force people to top post. ?It reminds me of the old joke: > > "Because people read from top to bottom." > "Why is top-posting stupid?" > > #include ms-rant.std > ----------Agreed. Outlook only becomes somewhat usable when you force it to convert all email to plain-text and then it still screws with line length and removes line breaks that it determines to be "extra". On a side note, the person who dreamed up HTML and RTF email needs to be drawn and quartered. If it can''t be expressed clearly in plain-text, then you should send it as an attachment. fpsm
> People still use Outhouse? Really?! Next you''ll be suggesting that > some people still put up with Internet Exploder... ;-)Those of us who are literally forced to use it aren''t too happy. Nor am I happy with the giant stupid signature that gets tacked on that you all have to trim when you reply. But I can''t do anything about it. The most infuriating thing is I could use Thunderbird or something actually good if it weren''t for scheduling meetings. Meeting scheduling. It''s the one killer feature that''s been keeping Microsoft alive for decades. When I say I want to use Thunderbird or something, the following conversation always happens, verbatim: "Boss, I want to use Thunderbird." "But... but.. how will you schedule meetings?" "I never schedule meetings, you always do." "But... but... how will you GET meetings?" "Send me an email." "But... but.. they won''t show up on your Outlook Calendar!" "I''m capable of adding them to my non-Outlook schedule manually." "How will people see what times you''re free?" "They could just ask me ''When are you free?''" "No. We can''t have you being a nonconformist. You have to be able to send and accept meetings and have them put on your calendar. You must use Outlook. Therefore we must use Exchange, forever and ever, world without end." <bangs head on desk> Apparently, before Outlook there WERE no meetings, because it''s clearly impossible to schedule one without it. And please don''t mail me with your favorite OSS solution. I''ve tried them all. None of them integrate with Exchange *smoothly* and *cleanly*. They''re all workarounds and kludges that are as annoying in the end as Outlook.> Agreed 100%. I''ve even set up my mail server to reject HTML emails.I have no problem with a little *basic* HTML. I just wish I could limit it to a few simple tags - <BOLD>, <PRE>, <UL>, etc - the most very basic formatting. No images. No tables or any of that crap. I do see how it''s nice sometimes to be able to use a little emphasis. It''s nice to be able to add some personality with use a different font (if you don''t go crazy with them). But unfortunately it ends up getting horribly munged and misused. Maybe there should be a filter that strips out all HTML except the basic tags. ---------- Learn more about Merchant Link at www.merchantlink.com. THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL. This e-mail message and any attachments are proprietary and confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not print, distribute, or copy this message or any attachments. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachments from your computer.
Doug.Linder at merchantlink.com said:> Apparently, before Outlook there WERE no meetings, because it''s clearly > impossible to schedule one without it.Don''t tell my boss, but I use Outlook for the scheduling, and fetchmail plus procmail to download email out of Exchange and into my favorite email client. Thankfully, Exchange listens to incoming SMTP when I need to send messages.> And please don''t mail me with your favorite OSS solution. I''ve tried them > all. None of them integrate with Exchange *smoothly* and *cleanly*. They''re > all workarounds and kludges that are as annoying in the end as Outlook.Hmm, what I''m doing doesn''t _integrate_ with Exchange; It just bypasses it for the email portion of my needs. Non-OSS: Mac OS X 10.6 claims to integrate with Exchange, although I have not yet tried it myself. Regards, Marion
On 19/06/10 07:58 AM, Marion Hakanson wrote:> Doug.Linder at merchantlink.com said: >> Apparently, before Outlook there WERE no meetings, because it''s clearly >> impossible to schedule one without it. > > Don''t tell my boss, but I use Outlook for the scheduling, and fetchmail > plus procmail to download email out of Exchange and into my favorite > email client. Thankfully, Exchange listens to incoming SMTP when I need > to send messages. > > >> And please don''t mail me with your favorite OSS solution. I''ve tried them >> all. None of them integrate with Exchange *smoothly* and *cleanly*. They''re >> all workarounds and kludges that are as annoying in the end as Outlook. > > Hmm, what I''m doing doesn''t _integrate_ with Exchange; It just bypasses > it for the email portion of my needs. Non-OSS: Mac OS X 10.6 claims to > integrate with Exchange, although I have not yet tried it myself.Could we all please STOP RESPONDING to this thread? It''s not about ZFS at all. James C. McPherson -- Senior Software Engineer, Solaris Oracle http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog