3 ms·

> Bottom posting is also good for people who might have missed a message in the thread. But it's worse for people who have been diligently following the email

by IvyMike 14y ago

> Bottom posting is also good for people who might have missed a message in the thread. But it's worse for people who have been diligently following the email discussion the whole time. "Hey, could you repeat that first bit again and again and again? Yup!" I also don't like to delete old context, because a late email could eventually get forwarded to a new party, in which case having the complete context is an advantage. In summary: I assume the common case is that a few people with normal memories are reading the mail, and I can just cut to the chase by top-posting my reply. But I preserve the old stuff at the bottom for the rare but important case of new participants. P.S. I realize that I'm bottom posting my reply.

dredmorbius 14y ago
I also don't like to delete old context, because a late email could eventually get forwarded to a new party, in which case having the complete context is an advantage. A proper mail client will be fully capable of forwarding the full thread (or any relevant portion) to another user. Whose proper email client will be capable of interpreting the attachment as threaded email and displaying it properly.
- cbr 14y ago
  How often have you done this? How often does it work? What fraction of people you communicate with are using sufficiently proper mail clients?
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    In technologically-oriented communities, fairly often. In others, not so much. Had an interesting situation with a legal case a few years back, much of which revolved around email evidence. Using standard Unix tools, cutting through, searching, organizing, and categorizing a large volume (thousands) of emails was fairly straightforward. Working with a legal team who had access only to conventional Windows products was ... maddening. Turns out, of course, that only a very small handful of documents were ultimately relevant to the court presentation, but understanding the context in selecting and presenting those was greatly assisted by being able to effectively process far more.

by IvyMike 14y ago

dredmorbius 14y ago

I also don't like to delete old context, because a late email could eventually get forwarded to a new party, in which case having the complete context is an advantage. A proper mail client will be fully capable of forwarding the full thread (or any relevant portion) to another user. Whose proper email client will be capable of interpreting the attachment as threaded email and displaying it properly.

cbr 14y ago
How often have you done this? How often does it work? What fraction of people you communicate with are using sufficiently proper mail clients?
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  In technologically-oriented communities, fairly often. In others, not so much. Had an interesting situation with a legal case a few years back, much of which revolved around email evidence. Using standard Unix tools, cutting through, searching, organizing, and categorizing a large volume (thousands) of emails was fairly straightforward. Working with a legal team who had access only to conventional Windows products was ... maddening. Turns out, of course, that only a very small handful of documents were ultimately relevant to the court presentation, but understanding the context in selecting and presenting those was greatly assisted by being able to effectively process far more.