procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: top-posting vs bottom-posting (was: Auto reply?)

2003-04-29 22:51:39
Morning,

On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 05:47, Fuzzy Logic wrote:
Remember that RFC 1855 is not a standard, but an Informational.  It was
published way back in 1995, and it shows it.  I understand your point, but
I respectfully disagree.  Remember, anyone can publish an RFC and make it
an informational.  If you want, I could submit for publication an RFC that
obsoletes 1855, as long as I can convince the Internet Society that my RFC
should do so.

<sarcasm+joke>
As far as I am concerned, both sides of the top- and bottom-posting mobs
are a little bit wrong. Interspersed replies are much easier to follow
as the reply is immediately below the segment of text they refer to.
</sarcasm+joke>

On a serious note however, 1855 might be old, but as netnews is still
around in more or less exactly the same shape as it was in 1995 (albeit
more traffic today) 1855 is still valid. It might only be advisory, but
it is there to make life easier for everyone.

The second URL is merely someone's opinion.

Something we all are allowed to have.. ;-)

I'll be honest.  I didn't expect you to pull out 1855. :)

BTW, the RFC also says:

  - A good rule of thumb:  Be conservative in what you send and
    liberal in what you receive.  You should not send heated messages
    (we call these "flames") even if you are provoked.  On the other
    hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's
    prudent not to respond to flames.

Which is very good advice indeed. If more people could take a deep
breath and count to ten before hitting that big yellow, orange and red
button labled FLAME on their keyboards, the net would be a nicer place.
All to often people take offence to what often are good-natured
postings, perhaps laced with sarcasm and wit, but none the less was not
ment to hurt. Todays society is much of a 'apportion blame' society and
no-one wants to take responsibility for their actions.

Some (not you, Tony, who responded in a polite, well-thought-out message)
would do well to read that.

Perhaps I should have a look at that RFC.. I've been on the net since
about 1994 sometime and never read it. :^)

Regards,

-- 
Anders Karlsson <anders(_at_)trudheim(_dot_)com>
Trudheim Technology Limited

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>