From: Steve F. <sfi...@pc...> - 2003-05-13 15:07:43
|
hey gusdevers- i wanted to throw out there a proposal for how we can all use this mailing list, possibly to best effect. comments and tomatoes encouraged. my idea is: 1. when responding to mail on the mail list, address your response *only* to the news group. thus, if you hit "reply all", remove all the recipients who are not gusdev-gusdev. This gets rid of the redundant mail traffic. 2. unless your response is really of no interest to the group, avoid providing private answers. this way, everybody will know that the question has been answered and won't spend their time providing another one, and, the answer will be available on the archive for future inquiries. 3. don't be too shy about re-subjecting a thread if it has veered off the original topic steve |
From: Arnaud K. <ax...@sa...> - 2003-05-13 18:55:22
|
Hi Steve Sounds find to me but re. 1. I would keep the main recipient to specify who it is adressed to and cc gusdev mailing list. Arnaud Selon Steve Fischer <sfi...@pc...>: > hey gusdevers- > > i wanted to throw out there a proposal for how we can all use this > mailing list, possibly to best effect. comments and tomatoes encouraged. > > my idea is: > 1. when responding to mail on the mail list, address your response > *only* to the news group. thus, if you hit "reply all", remove all the > recipients who are not gusdev-gusdev. This gets rid of the redundant > mail traffic. > > 2. unless your response is really of no interest to the group, avoid > providing private answers. this way, everybody will know that the > question has been answered and won't spend their time providing another > one, and, the answer will be available on the archive for future inquiries. > > 3. don't be too shy about re-subjecting a thread if it has veered off > the original topic > > steve > > |
From: Steve F. <st...@pc...> - 2003-05-14 18:12:23
|
I have another suggestion to add: that we always add our reponse to the top of the message, and never cut out parts of it. ie, that going to any individual mail in the thread contains the entire thread up till that point. otherwise, it is a pain to go searching for the parts of the thread that have been cut out. steve Arnaud Kerhornou wrote: >Hi Steve > >Sounds find to me but re. 1. I would keep the main recipient to specify who it >is adressed to and cc gusdev mailing list. > >Arnaud > >Selon Steve Fischer <sfi...@pc...>: > > > >>hey gusdevers- >> >>i wanted to throw out there a proposal for how we can all use this >>mailing list, possibly to best effect. comments and tomatoes encouraged. >> >>my idea is: >> 1. when responding to mail on the mail list, address your response >>*only* to the news group. thus, if you hit "reply all", remove all the >>recipients who are not gusdev-gusdev. This gets rid of the redundant >>mail traffic. >> >> 2. unless your response is really of no interest to the group, avoid >>providing private answers. this way, everybody will know that the >>question has been answered and won't spend their time providing another >>one, and, the answer will be available on the archive for future inquiries. >> >> 3. don't be too shy about re-subjecting a thread if it has veered off >>the original topic >> >>steve >> >> >> >> > > >------------------------------------------------------- >Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara >The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions >www.enterpriselinuxforum.com > >_______________________________________________ >Gusdev-gusdev mailing list >Gus...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gusdev-gusdev > > |
From: Jonathan C. <cra...@pc...> - 2003-05-14 18:29:31
|
Steve- Steve Fischer wrote: > I have another suggestion to add: > > that we always add our reponse to the top of the message, and never cut > out parts of it. ie, that going to any individual mail in the thread > contains the entire thread up till that point. otherwise, it is a pain > to go searching for the parts of the thread that have been cut out. I'm not sure I agree with this; top-posting is generally considered a bad thing because it's far easier to understand someone's response (particularly when they are responding to several distinct points) when the different parts of the response are interjected at the correct points in the quoted text (with a blank line before and after to make it easy to find the new material.) Similarly, I think that the generally-accepted practice is to allow responders to excise parts of the quoted message as they see fit (e.g., if they only want to comment on a small part of it.) I don't think the tracking problem is that bad, because as long as we follow the previously- described protocol for replies, you should be able to track the e-mail thread using a threaded e-mail reader (I don't use this feature too much, but I know that Mozilla supports it.) I'm pretty sure that the above reflects the accepted wisdom for Usenet posting etiquette, and I believe that it probably also applies to e-mails on the gusdev list, which is effectively a newsgroup of sorts. Search google for "top-posting" and you'll see a bunch of articles on the subject. Jonathan |
From: Steve F. <st...@pc...> - 2003-05-14 18:37:33
|
I think i am ok with interspersed responses... as long as they leave the whole original there. its the cutting that is the real problem. i just don't want to have to dig around among old mails to find the rest of the thread. steve steve Jonathan Crabtree wrote: > > Steve- > > Steve Fischer wrote: > >> I have another suggestion to add: >> >> that we always add our reponse to the top of the message, and never >> cut out parts of it. ie, that going to any individual mail in the >> thread contains the entire thread up till that point. otherwise, it >> is a pain to go searching for the parts of the thread that have been >> cut out. > > > I'm not sure I agree with this; top-posting is generally considered a bad > thing because it's far easier to understand someone's response > (particularly > when they are responding to several distinct points) when the > different parts > of the response are interjected at the correct points in the quoted text > (with a blank line before and after to make it easy to find the new > material.) > > Similarly, I think that the generally-accepted practice is to allow > responders to excise parts of the quoted message as they see fit (e.g., > if they only want to comment on a small part of it.) I don't think the > tracking problem is that bad, because as long as we follow the > previously- > described protocol for replies, you should be able to track the e-mail > thread using a threaded e-mail reader (I don't use this feature too much, > but I know that Mozilla supports it.) > > I'm pretty sure that the above reflects the accepted wisdom for Usenet > posting etiquette, and I believe that it probably also applies to e-mails > on the gusdev list, which is effectively a newsgroup of sorts. Search > google for "top-posting" and you'll see a bunch of articles on the > subject. > > Jonathan |
From: Jonathan C. <cra...@pc...> - 2003-05-14 18:58:03
|
Steve Fischer wrote: > I think i am ok with interspersed responses... as long as they leave the > whole original there. its the cutting that is the real problem. i just > don't want to have to dig around among old mails to find the rest of the > thread. You shouldn't have to do any digging so long as your e-mail client lets you read your e-mail in threaded mode. The following page covers some of the reasons why always including the whole message can be a bad idea (section 2.1): <http://learn.to/quote/> I think they're mostly applicable to e-mail as well as Usenet postings, particularly since the advent of threaded e-mail clients. Jonathan |