Over the years we have established ad-hoc posting rules. Many things are still debated but the ones we agreed on are:
* Do not top post. Put your reply below the quoted parts of the message. * Trim your posts. Only quote those parts of the message relevant to your reply.
Message line width is generally 72 characters if using plain text format. If you are re-wrapping someone else's quote and your MUA makes it difficult to read, it's your responsibility to reformat it.
These guidelines exist in order to put the onus of making an email legible on the author of an email rather than on the hundred or so people that might read it.
Please help us keep our list and list archives friendly and easy to read.
Thank you.
Ya know, this is the kind of arrogant bullshit that makes people want to leave. Please remove me from this list. I no longer want to be a kclug member.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Dewayne Clinton Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 3:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: posting rules reminder
Over the years we have established ad-hoc posting rules. Many things are still debated but the ones we agreed on are:
* Do not top post. Put your reply below the quoted parts of the message. * Trim your posts. Only quote those parts of the message relevant to your reply.
Message line width is generally 72 characters if using plain text format. If you are re-wrapping someone else's quote and your MUA makes it difficult to read, it's your responsibility to reformat it.
These guidelines exist in order to put the onus of making an email legible on the author of an email rather than on the hundred or so people that might read it.
Please help us keep our list and list archives friendly and easy to read.
Thank you.
-- I use digital signatures and encryption. My key is stored at pgp.mit.edu 0x8DB3BF09 FP: F628 D9D3 E57A C281 5EFE - 7DF7 B52A A393 8DB3 BF09
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/175 - Release Date: 11/18/2005
[email protected] wrote:
Ya know, this is the kind of arrogant bullshit that makes people want to leave. Please remove me from this list. I no longer want to be a kclug member.
no. it isn't arrogant BS. read RFC 1855. What is BS though is your email to the list requesting to be removed. Remove yourself.
dan radom wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
Ya know, this is the kind of arrogant bullshit that makes people want to leave. Please remove me from this list. I no longer want to be a kclug member.
no. it isn't arrogant BS. read RFC 1855. What is BS though is your email to the list requesting to be removed. Remove yourself.
Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Oh my gosh, I've been violating an RFC! I have now changed Thunderbird to put text at the bottom of the message.
Over the years I've realized the kclug is not purely a linux mailing list.
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Jim Herrmann wrote:
This was never agreed to. I recall a huge debate about it, and it was never resolved. Top posting is WAY more easy to read. :-P
Top posting is much harder to read, is a sign of poor taste, and is surely a crime against humanity, in some way. If Hitler were alive, I'm sure he would top post. 8-)
But I don't think we need to make a rule about it. Those of us who know better can simply look down on those who don't. Isn't that punishment enough.
Seriously, I think we'll all live less stressful lives if we avoid setting out on missions to control each other's behavior. Top posting is bad, folks, but surely it doesn't rise to the level of something bad enough to warrant a rule. And as someone else pointed out, there are mail user agents that don't give users the option to do anything but top post.
Adrian
Honestly, I've been doing this a fair amount of time just like everyone else, and I have yet to see a valid argument for why bottom posting is better. To the contrary, I've always seen it as a huge pain, *especially* with multiple levels of reply (which I try to avoid altogether).
My personal rules are: 1. top post my reply (removing multiple levels of reply) unless 2. there are multiple points to be made, in which case I mid-post
If this is unacceptable, then someone in charge please remove me. Otherwise, feel free to feel superior =)
Rick
L. Adrian Griffis wrote:
Top posting is much harder to read, is a sign of poor taste, and is surely a crime against humanity, in some way. If Hitler were alive, I'm sure he would top post. 8-)
But I don't think we need to make a rule about it. Those of us who know better can simply look down on those who don't. Isn't that punishment enough.
Seriously, I think we'll all live less stressful lives if we avoid setting out on missions to control each other's behavior. Top posting is bad, folks, but surely it doesn't rise to the level of something bad enough to warrant a rule. And as someone else pointed out, there are mail user agents that don't give users the option to do anything but top post.
Adrian
On 11/20/05, Rick [email protected] wrote:
If this is unacceptable, then someone in charge please remove me. Otherwise, feel free to feel superior =)
In charge? I don't think there is anyone really in "charge". There are people that admin the KCLUG webserver is that what you are meaning? There really isn't any structure otherwise.
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Rick wrote:
and I have yet to see a valid argument for why bottom posting is better.
For starters, no one is arguing that bottom posting is better than top posting. I guess I'd use the term "Context Posting" for what has been the polite and standard posting procedure on usenet and mailing lists for well over 10 years.
Mailing lists discourses are essentially conversations. If I wish to respond to a statement that you've made, it's better to quote that statement in context, so we all understand exactly what is being referenced.
If this is unacceptable, then someone in charge please remove me. Otherwise, feel free to feel superior =)
You are in charge. Post as you wish, stay if you like. But understand that if you're posting for others to understand your point, clarity is your best friend. If what you have to say is worth posting at all, why not make the minimal effort to present your views in the proven clearest method possible?
Regards,
-Don
--- Don Erickson [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Rick wrote:
If this is unacceptable, then someone in charge please remove me. Otherwise, feel free to feel superior =)
You are in charge. Post as you wish, stay if you like. But understand that if you're posting for others to understand your point, clarity is your best friend. If what you have to say is worth posting at all, why not make the minimal effort to present your views in the proven clearest method possible?
This brings up another point: some people have been posting to the list using some form of structured formatting language such as HTML. I'm speaking of the lines on the side of the posting instead of > characters.
These posts are darned difficult to format for someone else to read them, at least in my webmail, because instead of converting the lines into > characters, the postingEnds up looking like this.And sticking sentences right next to each other.And doing it over and over again.Even if a new paragraph has been started.
Again, your E-mail application/webmail might force you to do so, but if we're talking clarity here its not very easy to reply to someone with HTML (or whatever that is) in their E-mail.
(hmmm, no top posting, check; trimmed lines, check; trimmed replied-to message, check; yup, this post is within the guidelines.)
__________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On Sunday 20 November 2005 21:18, Leo Mauler wrote:
This brings up another point: some people have been posting to the list using some form of structured formatting language such as HTML. I'm speaking of the lines on the side of the posting instead of > characters.
.quote { border-left: 2px solid blue; padding-left: 1ex; } So and so said, <div class="quote">I like HTML</div>
... makes sense to me. Too bad KMail doesn't support it. HTML email is better in general even without formatting, because it supports automatic line wrapping. ;)
These posts are darned difficult to format for someone else to read them,
If anything, they should be easier... Nothing makes > better than a line.
at least in my webmail, because instead of converting the lines into > characters, the postingEnds up looking like this.And sticking sentences right next to each other.And doing it over and over again.Even if a new paragraph has been started.
Then that's a bug in your webmail or browser. The lines shouldn't *be* converted, they should be displayed as usual. If the mail app is replying in plain text, then it should use the plain text version of the original message for the reply.
Again, your E-mail application/webmail might force you to do so, but if we're talking clarity here its not very easy to reply to someone with HTML (or whatever that is) in their E-mail.
Simple rule: in a HTML reply, stick the original HTML within a <div>; for the plain text reply, apply the usual reply filters to the plain text source message.
--- Luke-Jr [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday 20 November 2005 21:18, Leo Mauler wrote:
This brings up another point: some people have been posting to the list using some form of structured formatting language such as HTML. I'm speaking of the lines on the side of the posting instead of > characters.
... ...
Too bad KMail doesn't support it.
... ...
Then that's a bug in your webmail or browser.
So it seems that there are at least two instances where the lines instead of > make the E-mail harder to read for some people.
Seems to me anyone who wants E-mail sent with the label "Best Viewed With X E-mail Application" is yearning for the bad old days when you couldn't be sure an E-mail written on one E-mail application could be read by another E-mail application, network, or operating system. (with apologies to Tim Berners-Lee).
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 01:02, Leo Mauler wrote:
--- Luke-Jr [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday 20 November 2005 21:18, Leo Mauler wrote:
This brings up another point: some people have been posting to the list using some form of structured formatting language such as HTML. I'm speaking of the lines on the side of the posting instead of > characters.
Too bad KMail doesn't support it.
Referring to HTML, note.
Then that's a bug in your webmail or browser.
If your mail program cannot handle HTML, then it should ignore it and use the text/plain section. If it uses text/html then it should be reasonable to expect it to handle it properly.
So it seems that there are at least two instances where the lines instead of make the E-mail harder to read for some people.
No, the lack in KMail is the inability to properly setup HTML replies. KMail, as it should, uses the text/plain for reply quoting. A bug in a mail program is just that: a bug. The internet should not work around the bug of a mail program. The mail program should be fixed or replaced.
Seems to me anyone who wants E-mail sent with the label "Best Viewed With X E-mail Application"
Nobody is asking for that. However, a broken email program is not an excuse to cripple the entire internet email exchange.
is yearning for the bad old days when you couldn't be sure an E-mail written on one E-mail application could be read by another E-mail application, network, or operating system. (with apologies to Tim Berners-Lee).
What days? As far as I'm aware, the classic text/plain email has always worked everywhere.
-- Rick [email protected] wrote:
If this is unacceptable, then someone in charge please remove me. Otherwise, feel free to feel superior =)
Structure in KCLUG? Chris Biers handled the ITEC paperwork, but other than that I'm not sure who is "in charge".
Hey, does this mean we're all "empowered"? :)
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Leo Mauler wrote:
Structure in KCLUG? Chris Biers handled the ITEC paperwork, but other than that I'm not sure who is "in charge"
Being fairly new to the KCLUG, I was unaware of the hierarchy, if any.
Hey, does this mean we're all "empowered"? :)
Isn't that what F/OSS is all about? =)
Lastly, someone in a previous post mentioned posts in HTML, which apparently was me. My apologies, I've long said that all email should be plain text, but wasn't paying adequate attention to the setup on my clients.
On Sunday 20 November 2005 07:01, Rick wrote:
Rick: Honestly, I've been doing this a fair amount of time just like everyone else, and I have yet to see a valid argument for why bottom posting is better.
Luke: "bottom" posting makes more sense for discussions. If one is to summarize or reply generally, it's probably better to top-post or maybe even just reply w/o any past content (though that only works with threading)
Rick: To the contrary, I've always seen it as a huge pain, *especially* with multiple levels of reply (which I try to avoid altogether).
Luke: If the discussion is long enough and involves multiple people, then I can see how it could confuse you when trying to determine who said what... but in the end, does it really matter *who* said it? What matters is *what* was said.
Luke: So, how about this style of replies? Takes a bit more effort, but it's certainly more readable than anything else...
I don't care one way or the other, I certainly don't feel like I'm above anyone else on the list, so why should I or anyone else try to force views.....
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 02:47 +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
On Sunday 20 November 2005 07:01, Rick wrote:
Rick: Honestly, I've been doing this a fair amount of time just like everyone else, and I have yet to see a valid argument for why bottom posting is better.
Luke: "bottom" posting makes more sense for discussions. If one is to summarize or reply generally, it's probably better to top-post or maybe even just reply w/o any past content (though that only works with threading)
I'll just post wherever I want in the message, like some kind of rebel.
Rick: To the contrary, I've always seen it as a huge pain, *especially* with multiple levels of reply (which I try to avoid altogether).
Luke: If the discussion is long enough and involves multiple people, then I can see how it could confuse you when trying to determine who said what... but in the end, does it really matter *who* said it? What matters is *what* was said
Well its always nice to know who said what, that whole credit where credit is......
Luke: So, how about this style of replies? Takes a bit more effort, but it's certainly more readable than anything else...
Yeah but this isn't a doctorate we are all writing, its a casual mailing list. I don't treat each message I write, as some kind of artwork, that everyone should print and place in the finest of frame. Though if anyone would like my autograph, they are $15 at the meetings.
If we are going to have to start running our emails through some kind of unit testing, then why bother having a public email list?
So I guess we should only let 3 people post, these 3 "Commissioners of Email" shall be chosen not by the list, but by a self appointed panel (us commoners do not deserve to choose these enlightened moderators), everyone else must submit their intent to post form, followed by a list of references, and the message, formatted using the KCLUG Style Guide RFC BS11202005, or have said message rejected without debate.
Addendum, the message must be submitted in docbook dtd v4.
On Sunday 20 November 2005 22:16, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Why not just setup a poll on kclug.org http://kclug.org to settle all this?
Because there is no leader. There is no legal organization. There's no method of applying pressure to anyone. We cannot remove people from a group with no membership criteria. We have no rules. No one will abide by the results of such a poll. It's easier to be lazy than it is to be polite.
What we DO have are a bunch of people whom never learned netiquite posting to our list representing our group with their sloppy, illegible emails showing up in our archives in Google search results.
But then again, who is this "us" anyways?
I second Bill's post idea's.
You know, I think of kclug as being a open, friendly lug. But this kind of bullshit makes me crindge.
Sorry for my spelling errors, my misplaced reply lines, and all the other shit that offends all.
I respect almost all of you a great deal, when I need help with something I know there is someone here who has the experience and knowledge to help me. I don't know all the net<wtf> however I would hope those complaining the most had common sense enough to follow conversations they are taking part of regardless of where reply's are made.
Not every joe blow knows all *** number of RFC's out there on the planet, if we can't be open, understanding, and helpful then what the fuck are we even in existance for?
Sorry if you can't read this cause it's a top quote... cant figure out what it's about? have a retarded 8 yearold help you read. (no offence to the educationally challenged).
I'll continue to post however i logically see fit.
"hmmm, no top posting, not-check; trimmed lines, not-check; trimmed replied-to message, not-check; nope, this post is not within the guidelines. ban me."
parts taken from Leo Mauler, edited by Tom bruno original quote in, Re: posting rules reminder by Leo mauler, 11/20/2005 3:18pm
"I don't care one way or the other, I certainly don't feel like I'm above anyone else on the list, so why should I or anyone else try to force views....." Bill Cavalieri
Jason Dewayne Clinton wrote:
On Sunday 20 November 2005 22:16, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Why not just setup a poll on kclug.org http://kclug.org to settle all this?
Because there is no leader. There is no legal organization. There's no method of applying pressure to anyone. We cannot remove people from a group with no membership criteria. We have no rules. No one will abide by the results of such a poll. It's easier to be lazy than it is to be polite.
What we DO have are a bunch of people whom never learned netiquite posting to our list representing our group with their sloppy, illegible emails showing up in our archives in Google search results.
But then again, who is this "us" anyways?
--- Tom Bruno [email protected] wrote:
I'll continue to post however i logically see fit.
"hmmm, no top posting, not-check; trimmed lines, not-check; trimmed replied-to message, not-check; nope, this post is not within the guidelines. ban
me."
parts taken from Leo Mauler, edited by Tom bruno original quote in, Re: posting rules reminder by Leo mauler, 11/20/2005 3:18pm
You could have simply posted your opinion without claiming I had anything to do with it.
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
Leo Mauler wrote:
--- Tom Bruno [email protected] wrote:
I'll continue to post however i logically see fit.
"hmmm, no top posting, not-check; trimmed lines, not-check; trimmed replied-to message, not-check; nope, this post is not within the guidelines. ban
me."
parts taken from Leo Mauler, edited by Tom bruno original quote in, Re: posting rules reminder by Leo mauler, 11/20/2005 3:18pm
You could have simply posted your opinion without claiming I had anything to do with it.
oh.. well I just thought yours was funny and wanted to give credit for the "idea" and apply the checklist to my message. since the topic of credit for who said what came up earlier i thought i'd be overly sarcastic.
Leo Mauler wrote:
--- Tom Bruno [email protected] wrote:
I'll continue to post however i logically see fit.
"hmmm, no top posting, not-check; trimmed lines, not-check; trimmed replied-to message, not-check; nope, this post is not within the guidelines. ban
me."
parts taken from Leo Mauler, edited by Tom bruno original quote in, Re: posting rules reminder by Leo mauler, 11/20/2005 3:18pm
You could have simply posted your opinion without claiming I had anything to do with it.
oh... well I just thought yours was funny and wanted to give credit for the "idea" and apply the checklist to my message. since the topic of credit for who said what came up earlier and i wanted to be overly sarcastic.
Jason Dewayne Clinton wrote:
On Sunday 20 November 2005 22:16, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Why not just setup a poll on kclug.org http://kclug.org to settle all this?
Because there is no leader. There is no legal organization. There's no method of applying pressure to anyone. We cannot remove people from a group with no membership criteria. We have no rules. No one will abide by the results of such a poll. It's easier to be lazy than it is to be polite.
What we DO have are a bunch of people whom never learned netiquite posting to our list representing our group with their sloppy, illegible emails showing up in our archives in Google search results.
Yeah, btw, thanks again for making us all look like dipshits on Google with yet another flame roll of this topic. I'm sure people are going to respect us for posting the rules and starting flaming on our list. Great stuff..... real pleasent read for those Google searchers...
But then again, who is this "us" anyways?
was inline quoting to confusing?
On the bright side, they shouldn't actually find this thread unless they're googling for "flaming dipshit"...
oh wait
Tom Bruno wrote:
Yeah, btw, thanks again for making us all look like dipshits on Google with yet another flame roll of this topic. I'm sure people are going to respect us for posting the rules and starting flaming on our list. Great stuff..... real pleasent read for those Google searchers...
I wonder if I top and bottom post, if that makes
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 19:12 -0600, Jim Herrmann wrote:
This was never agreed to. I recall a huge debate about it, and it was never resolved. Top posting is WAY more easy to read. :-P
Jason Dewayne Clinton wrote:
- Do not top post. Put your reply below the quoted parts of the message.
me mainstream?
-Bill
--- Bill Cavalieri [email protected] wrote:
I wonder if I top and bottom post, if that makes
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 19:12 -0600, Jim Herrmann wrote:
This was never agreed to. I recall a huge debate
about it, and it was
never resolved. Top posting is WAY more easy to
read. :-P
Jason Dewayne Clinton wrote:
- Do not top post. Put your reply below the
quoted parts of the message.
me mainstream?
-Bill
Ooo, so radical!
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
On Saturday 19 November 2005 07:12 pm, Jim Herrmann wrote:
This was never agreed to. I recall a huge debate about it, and it was never resolved. Top posting is WAY more easy to read. :-P
Jason Dewayne Clinton wrote:
- Do not top post. Put your reply below the quoted parts of the
message.
You're right, we never agreed on that. So in summary, the one and only rule is to please trim your posts. Call it a rule of thumb if that makes you feel better.
Hello kclug,
Sunday, November 20, 2005, 9:22:42 AM, you wrote:
- Do not top post.
This was never agreed to.
You're right, we never agreed on that.
Don't you boys have anything better to argue about? Like - anyone heard of Linux running on the new Xbox 360?
That's right. We never agreed to bottom posting. There are arguments both for and against top posting and bottom posting. The biggest problem with bottom posting is for those who are following a thread. It becomes worse when posters don't trim responses. There's one thing worse than having a reply with the entire thread pasted on top of the reply, forcing one to scroll to the bottom to get to the reply. That one thing is an in-post reply that includes the whole thread and the reply buried in various places in the entire thread of a topic.
There are three accepted reply methods on the KCLUG. Top-posting, bottom posting and in-posting. The reason for this is that the KCLUG is an anarchy. Not a democracy or a dictatorship.
As you can see I fall into the top-posting category. I find it easier to read. Should I jump into a thread halfway into it, and find myself not relating to the context, I go and read the original post. I prefer everyone top-post, but won't try to force my opinion on the LUG by claiming it is a standard behavior.
It has generally been accepted that it is bad manners to not trim replies. Although I don't recall us ever setting up a formal list of posting rules. I would not be opposed to having a standard list of rules, but I know that with the anarchaic composition of the LUG that is unlikely to ever happen. Most mailing lists do have rules and at least one moderator. As far as I know we have none.
IIRC, Brian JD
PS. I remember more than one debate on this topic. With no resolution in any of the debates.
--- Jim Herrmann wrote:
This was never agreed to. I recall a huge debate about it, and it was never resolved. Top posting is WAY more easy to read. :-P
Jason Dewayne Clinton wrote:
- Do not top post. Put your reply below the quoted
parts of the message.
--- Jason Dewayne Clinton [email protected] wrote:
Over the years we have established ad-hoc posting rules. Many things are still debated but the ones we agreed on are:
- Do not top post. Put your reply below the quoted
parts of the message.
While I can easily agree with trimming the quoted text to relevant information, reformatting replies, and keeping line lengths under a minimum length, top posting allows one to see a short answer quickly and easily without having to wade through the rest of the posting to find the reply.
The only time when top posting should be avoided is if there are replies to multiple parts of the posting. Then one should reply to each part right below each part.
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
-
Arthur Pemberton -
Bill Cavalieri -
dan radom -
djgoku -
Don Erickson -
Jack -
Jason Dewayne Clinton -
Jim Herrmann -
kurt＠verruckt.org -
L. Adrian Griffis -
Leo Mauler -
Luke-Jr -
Micke Ohrberg -
Paul Taylor -
Rick -
Thomas Bruno -
Tom Bruno