[ic] RE: Top Quoting - What is it?

Kevin Walsh interchange-users@interchange.redhat.com
Tue Apr 2 08:13:00 2002


> 
> Dear Mike Heins,
> RE:>>I have simply started ignoring messages that top-quote.
> ---------
> Just so that I don't get on your bad side right off the bat, could you take
> a moment and define "top-quote".  Is what I am doing here considered
> "top-quoting"?
> 
> I have always tried to include enough detail (about preceding messages in a
> thread) as to allow a reader with little knowledge of the previous
> conversation to quickly
> catch up.  Is this not good protocol?
>
I may as well answer that for you.

Mike Heins posts an article titled "Interchange-users guidelines
[semi-monthly posting]" every now and again, which states:

============================================================
 -- Contextual quoting is preferred, i.e.

		Quoting user1 (<user1@somedomain.redhat.com>):
		> Some limited text that will give context.
		> 
		
		Your reply.

    versus

		Your reply, lazily put at the top.

		Quoting user1 (<user1@somedomain.redhat.com>):
		> The whole big blob of the previous posts, including
		> signatures and all

	In fact, the author of the program stops following a thread
	the moment this lazy quoting method is used. He figures that
	if you can't take half a minute of your time to save multiple
	minutes of the readers time, the heck with ya.
============================================================

This is what he was referring to.  If people can't get their email
client to quote articles properly then they either need a new
email client or a better manual.

Look out for the guideline article when it gets posted again, or
search the archives.  Following the guidelines is one of the best
ways to make sure people keep talking to you. :-)

-- 
   _/   _/  _/_/_/_/  _/    _/  _/_/_/  _/    _/
  _/_/_/   _/_/      _/    _/    _/    _/_/  _/   K e v i n   W a l s h
 _/ _/    _/          _/ _/     _/    _/  _/_/    kevin@cursor.biz
_/   _/  _/_/_/_/      _/    _/_/_/  _/    _/