TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2011-12 > 1325086460


From: Dennis Lee Bieber <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Non sequitur -- quoting etiquette and mailing lists (was:Exhibits
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:34:20 -0500
References: <1325004423.96287.YahooMailRC@web180103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><201112271739.pBRHd1RL011118@mail.rootsweb.com><201112271908.pBRJ8106001677@mail.rootsweb.com><201112280005.pBS05pLI032265@mail.rootsweb.com><201112280022.pBS0MKd6004564@mail.rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <201112280022.pBS0MKd6004564@mail.rootsweb.com>


At 07:22 PM 12/27/2011, Steinar Vissebr├ąten wrote:
>At 00:46 28.12.2011, you wrote:
>
>I apologize for your memory loss - I really thought you had your mail stored.

I do have archives of outgoing
messages... But I had to use the date stamp in
the attribution line to match up with the
date-stamp on my outgoing archive to find out
that you /were/ responding to one of my messages.


<snip>


>My snip is ok for the ones that remember, to others is needed some more lines.

The <snip> itself would have been okay
IF the attribution line had included my name.
Compare the top two lines of this response.

My attribution line includes your name;
which tells all the recipients whose message I'm
replying to, so they can, if needed, dig it up
out of the archives. Your mail client, however,
is only putting in the word "you". That's good
when you are sending your reply to just the one
person, but when sending to a list, it fails to
tell the others just whose message you are commenting on.

Consider the difference between (fictional examples)

>At the Twelfth of Never, you wrote:
>
><snipped>
>
>I agree


and

>At the Twelfth of Never, the Lord of Misrule wrote:
>
><snipped>
>
>I agree

when in a thread with many active participants.

{General comment to the thread, I'm not targeting anyone in particular here}

Granted, my quoting habits pre-date M$
Outlook and its horrendous attempt to be helpful
(I've seen versions that quoted text by not only
indenting the entire message, but changing font
size in the process; and tagging the text in such
a way that Trim&Insert replies can not be
managed). My habits are from the days of the
GEnie system, where one paid by the minute for
data transfer (over slow 1200 to 4800 bps
modems). As it turns out, the style I adopted
also matches most of RFC 1855 (
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html ), section
3 (one to many communications) (middle of 3.1.1 is relevant:



> - If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
> summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
> enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
> sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
> Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
> postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
> response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
> helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!

)



This thread: