Interleaving only works if the email you're replying to consists of separable units that can be replied to individually. Replying to messages with complexity be

Interleaving only works if the email you're replying to consists of separable units that can be replied to individually. Replying to messages with complexity beyond "A/S/L??", I find that replies tend to depend on each other and if you try to quote, or selectively quote, parts of a message and reply to each section, your reply ends up having forward and backward dependencies, splitting up important points between different block quotes, and repeating itself. This is especially true when you have to introduce new information the other person wasn't aware, or if you need to explain your reasoning, or depart from their expected answer format. In short, any time your reply contains anything additional beyond direct answers to the questions. In the real world, most answers entail such additional information. I know we value each and every precious keystroke, but I tend to stick with that old adage we learned in middle-school of restating the question in your answer. Since you're re-establishing the email context in your own words rather than using the words & order the other person gave you, you have the freedom to structure your reply that best communicates whatever it is you need to add. My experience is that interleaved replied are also less concise. Re-stating context allows you to summarize it, and it allows you to unify several points into one response. Interleaved replies encourage repetition--I can't tell you how many debates I've seen with point-by-point rebuttals, where the last N-1 chunks all start with "Again," "As I said before," and "Like I just said." To use the example from the original article: Best reply would be "Thursday sounds great!" Much shorter, and I don't have to re-read what I already wrote to understand it.