On Wednesday 20 Aug 2003 22:44 in
<E7E213858379814A9AE48CA6754F5ECB0D706B@mail01.stbernard.com>, David
Olbersen (DOlbersen@stbernard.com) wrote:
[snip]
> What is the point of bottom posting anymore? I thought it had to do with
> turn-around time so that you could re-read whatever it is you wrote a
> "long time ago".
The reason for posting a follow-up below the text to which it is replying is
for readers who like to see the question before the answer, viz.,
A: Because it breaks the natural flow of discussion.
>Q: Why is top-posting bad?
The most important point is that a message should not be viewed as a
monolithic block of text. Replies should be interpolated immediately below
the items to which they pertain.
> I highly doubt you would know, but is there an easy way
> to make Outlook 2000 (not Express) bottom post?
I haven't used Outlook for over 2 years. However, when I did I was able to
bottom-post my replies. I think the only option I selected was about cursor
positioning, but I don't remember clearly how I configured it.
> Full-quoting is just a pain when it comes to searching on google, since a
> reply may only consist of quoted messages and then a "read the whole
> message" link.
Full-quoting wastes bandwidth, a somewhat moot point these days, and keeps
text that is not relevant to the follow-up message. The latter is more
important when searching on Google and the like, as false positives can be
returned due to matches on quoted text asking a question to which the
follow-up message does not supply an answer.
As a result, snipping irrelevant blocks of text makes a reply more precise
and more useful for archival searching. [As well as reducing download times
for those still using dial-up.]
--
Regards,
Dave [RLU#314465]
======================================================
dwnoon@spamtrap.ntlworld.com (David W Noon)
Remove spam trap to reply via e-mail.
======================================================
