Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF expunged (nigel@ngunn.net):

Top posting is the better option.

My favorite annoyance are people who post 1 line of text but have 5 lines of a .sig :)

-- Nigel A. Gunn, 1865 El Camino Drive, Xenia, OH 45385-1115, USA. tel +1 937 825 5032 Amateur Radio G8IFF W8IFF (was KC8NHF), e-mail nigel@ngunn.net www http://www.ngunn.net Member of ARRL, GQRP #11396, QRPARCI #11644, SOC #548, Flying Pigs QRP Club International #385, Dayton ARA #2128, AMSAT-NA LM-1691, AMSAT-UK 0182, MKARS, ALC, GCARES, XWARN.

-Steve

The last time I set up a mailing list, the list manager was insistent that I did not want to set the "reply-to" address to the list address, noting that doing that removed any "reply-to" field that the sender put in there, which was a loss of important data for those users who put data in that header field. It also pointed out that it made private messages harder to do, and gave it a nonzero probability that you would respond to the group when you intended to respond to the individual. The configuration pages linked to a newsgroup post somewhere of someone ranting about the practice and proving that it was the wrong thing to do.

Nevertheless, I selected that option and I will do it again. Because unless you choose that option, the most efficient way for me to reply to the group is to do a reply all. (Well, it was. This new version of Thunderbird has a "reply to group" option. Woot!) At that point, I have to trim the recipient list in order to send it only to the group, which is almost always what I'm trying to do. It's a pain, so most of the time I don't bother.

Since most responses to list messages are intended for the list and not to the individual who wrote the message you're responding to, not abusing "reply-to" in that fashion deoptimizes the typical case in order to be technically correct. That is, in my opinion, a dumb thing to do in order to preserve the information in the rarely-used reply-to field.

I mention this because this list is set up in the technically correct way, and I have several times sent messages to individuals when I intended them to go to the list. That is MY particular annoyance.

On 04/14/2010 07:54 AM, Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF wrote:

Only 4 lines of sig. The 2 dashes are the delimiter put in by the e-mail client. Could be worse. I could put the sig at the top! Also bugs me when people dont crop the recipient list.

On 14-Apr-10 04:39, Steve Meuse wrote:

...

Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF expunged (nigel@ngunn.net):

...

Top posting is the better option.

My favorite annoyance are people who post 1 line of text but have 5 lines of a .sig :)

!DSPAM:117,4bc5f018191152065711076!

At 04:50 AM 4/14/2010, Tom Azlin N4ZPT wrote:

Guess times change. Top posting is the standard on some reflectors. Especially with folks reading using small screens.

Doesn't bother me either way, provided people trim unnecessary quotes from their emails. I prefer things done in order, like this message, but as long as it's possible to follow the conversation, I'm fine with it. :)

In order of increasing annoyance:

Properly quoted messages with trimmed quotes. May be more than one part of quoted text with new comments following. - This is my preferred format.

Top posting with quotes trimmed - Also a good option, and probably the easiest for users of Outlook to manage.

No quoting at all - This can cause confusion, as there is no context.

Top posting without trimming quotes - Now we're starting to waste bandwidth, especially on mobile devices. However, this format is a good one when forwarding emails, and is in common business usage, where it is often the most appropriate format, e.g. "Can you please respond to this customer's query...".

Bottom posting without trimming quotes - This is HIGHLY annoying, especially for mobile users. People reading the email have to scroll through pages of quotes, to see anything new. And it's several times as many screens on a mobile device to get through all that crud...

Improperly quoted email - Emails where it is difficult to tell quoted material from new material (usually because of careless formatting) are particularly difficult to follow.

Fully quoted email, no new content - Why repost an email without commenting on it? A total waste of bandwidth, and a waste of the reader's time.

In all cases, quoting of mailing list footers is particularly annoying, as this adds no useful value.

Think of your readers. Email rules are changing, IMHO, and compared to traditional "Netiquette", you'll notice these tips are very open and flexible. :) We're certainly no longer reading email over a 300 baud modem, but our screen sizes may be _much_ larger (i.e. just about every desktop) or smaller (mobile devices) than the traditional 40x24 or 80x24 text only formats that were dominant back then. For some of us, mobile bandwidth does cost serious money.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com

Gordon JC Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 14:50 -0400, Tom Azlin N4ZPT wrote:

...

Guess times change. Top posting is the standard on some reflectors. Especially with folks reading using small screens.

Top posting makes no sense, and on small screens makes it damn near impossible to follow what's going on.

Gordon, I think it depends on what you are replying to, and the content you include. Sometimes, I have something related, but not point-by-point to say about a post. Including some context, and top-posting is a smart thing to do in that case, because it lets people read your reply, and if they care about the subject, they can scroll down to see the details that you are replying too. If they don't care, then no more scrolling is necessary to look for your reply verses the content you quoted and posted response to.

Gregg Wonderly W5GGW

But I've already read that message, and even can recall what it was about, usually. I want to read the NEW contribution without having to read all that again.

But if you've forgotten what went before, I have made a handy footnote available to you.

So top posting often wins.

73, doug

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:02:39 -0700 (PDT) From: John Magliacane kd2bd@yahoo.com

Top posting makes no sense, and on small screens makes it damn near impossible to follow what's going on.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

That depends on whether you have cats or not.

73, doug

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:06:09 -0500 From: Idle-Tyme nss@mwt.net This getting as bad as the toilet paper roll over or roll under thing geez guys.

On 4/13/2010 5:50 PM, Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote:

But I've already read that message, and even can recall what it was about, usually. I want to read the NEW contribution without having to read all that again.

But if you've forgotten what went before, I have made a handy footnote available to you.

So top posting often wins.

73, doug

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Magliacane<kd2bd@yahoo.com>

>  Top posting makes no sense, and on small screens makes it damn near
>  impossible to follow what's going on.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

---

Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb

_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb