Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Maria Winslow <maria.winslow AT windows-linux.com>]

Steve - nobody cares! I think I'll start my own movement about it. 

Maria

On Wednesday 28 May 2003 03:48 pm, Steven Champeon wrote:
> on Wed, May 28, 2003 at 03:21:09PM -0400, David R. Matusiak wrote:
> > now, if this "Top posting is blatantly wrong" idea is supported by some
> > type of Internet Standards group, then just point me to the RFC and i
> > would be glad to review the technical specifications and determine
> > whether my electronic communications comply.
>
> Do a google search, you silly.
>
>  RFC 1855: Netiquette Guidelines
>  http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
>
>  Section 3.1.1,
>  General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews:
>
>     - 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!
>
> Granted, RFC 1855 is just an informational RFC, and like all other RFCs,
> is not binding on anyone - except those who care about being a part of a
> larger community run by convention and agreement upon best practices.
>
>  http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
>
> I dunno, I just guess that if you're going to spend the time to write
> something to a list of a couple thousand people, you'd care that it be
> sent in the manner most likely to result in their understanding it. And
> top posting, to me, is a form of laziness, encouraged by poorly designed
> mail clients, and as such should be discouraged at every turn. Like
> HTML email, viruses, spam, and poor spelling ;)
>
> There are those who disagree:
>
> 
> http://www.globecom.net/ietf/draft/draft-bambenek-posting-guidelines-00.htm
>l
>
> But they're wrong.
>
> Steve,
> electronic communications fundie