Beta release 4.62.1
gerard at seibercom.net
Wed Jun 6 12:59:14 IST 2007
On Wednesday June 06, 2007 at 07:13:19 (AM) Martin.Hepworth wrote:
> See inline..
Inline is great for messages that only receive a few at most replies.
It becomes rather cumbersome and unwieldy on posts that receive
numerous replies; especially when the various posters are replying to
different sections of the OP's original post.
A top poster will also place their signature at the top of the post.
Inevitably, the will precede it with a 'sig delimiter'. Many MUA's are
configured to strip all of the garbage that follows the 'sig delimiter'
upon replying to a message. This is especially useful on message lists
like this that add so much superfluous nonsense at the end of every
post. If there are several replies to a post, and this extraneous text
is not stripped prior to the message being posted, the final document
becomes even more difficult to fathom, as well as totally wasting
bandwidth and storage capacity. Neither of which is a problem with
modern PC's, etc.; however it does display the lack of attention to
detail by the perpetrators of such posts.
Now, when the top poster places their signature with the 'sig
delimiter' at the top of a message, and a user with an MUA configured
to strip text following said delimiter upon replying attempts to
simply reply to said message, all but the top posters reply will be
deleted. That is great if the replier intended to only respond to the
top posters text. Not so great if the replier wanted to address other
portions of the post. Obviously, there are ways around this predicament.
> Like I said don't get me started - most MUA's used to bottom post the
> MS-mail came along and broke the 'standard'. I can rant all day about M$
> and email:-)
I believe your statement here is a total fabrication. In nearly thirty
years I have used virtually every major MUA whether it was based on
the Microsoft Window's model or some other OS. I have no personal
knowledge that your statement is true. In fact, I find it to be
counter to the actual facts. Can you provide some factual data to
backup that statement? In any case, the easiest way to circumvent this
problem is to shun users of poorly configured MUA's though.
By the way, can you please explain to me why this nonsense has to be
included with your replies:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info [mailto:mailscanner-
> bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Gerard Seibert
> Sent: 06 June 2007 12:06
> To: mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> Subject: Re: Beta release 4.62.1
That is just so redundant. The address of the message is obvious, as
is the subject. Even the reply header I use should probably lose the
time display. I will have to get that done later this week. Isn't
there some way you can fix yours? I haven't used Outlook since version
2002 (XP); however, I was not aware that it enforced a convoluted
reply header like that by default.
By the way, there are scant official standard regarding posting
etiquette. These are somewhat interest however.
If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive,
please ignore it. If you don't know how to
ignore a posting, complain to me and I will
be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)
More information about the MailScanner