Bill Turner wrote:
Then why does the most-used email program in the world default to top
posting? Please don't answer with an anti-Microsoft rant. I really
want your evaluation of the question.

Most popular and right are not necessarily the same thing...

(in general programmers tend to do these things they way they like it to
work, whether anyone else prefers it that way or not...

That applies both to Microsoft programs (why, in Word, do you click on
"Format" to format paragraphs, fonts, and lines -- but "File" to format
the page?!) and to Linux programs. (I love the Joe editor, except....
the control-arrow keys don't work, you use control-X and control-Z
instead...)

Even Macs have had their not-so-good moments. I remember the first Mac
I tried to stuff on the building network. Here's a box for inputting
the IP address. Stick in "192.168.1.4" - it says "Invalid entry". ??!!
Turns out what it wanted was 2158493956.)

I think Walt has the right answer. (except for the part about it being
obvious...) You're supposed to delete any quoted text that has nothing
to do with your reply, then put the cursor after the material you're
replying to and type from there.

If you do delete the irrelevant text and type your comments after the
relevant quotes, then it really doesn't matter where your mailer leaves
the cursor.

If you *don't* delete the irrelevant text then I suppose it does make
more sense to top-post -- so that the reader doesn't have to wade
through all the irrelevant material to reach your comments. (I will
frequently delete an email unread if everything on the first screen is
someone else's quoted material)

On the other hand, making top-posting the default makes it easier to be
too lazy to delete the irrelevant material...

It might be nice for the software to, by default, refuse to post any
message that's more than 75% quoted material...

--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote

It might be nice for the software to, by default, refuse to post any message
that's more than 75% quoted material...


Yes.

===deleted due 75% rule===

"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote

It might be nice for the software to, by default, refuse to post any message
that's more than 75% quoted material...


Yes.

===deleted due 75% rule===

"KØHB" wrote:


"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote

It might be nice for the software to, by default, refuse to post any message
that's more than 75% quoted material...


Yes.

As a matter fact, I remember a couple of newsservers I frequently used a
couple of years ago that actually did that. Annoying for the first couple of
postings, enlightenig for the rest of my usenet experience.

I wish professional use of e-Mail communication would adhere to that basic
rule. It would make life easier and less painful to read some people's
e-Mail. Malformed, malquoted, blinking tags and all that with virtually no
reference to original mail.

Peter Lemken
DF5JT
Berlin

--
Toleranz, das war doch diese resultierende Verhaltensweise, wenn man sich
zwischen Abscheu und Mitleid nicht entscheiden kann.

(Andreas Kroschel in de.alt.talk.unmut)

"KØHB" wrote:


"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote

It might be nice for the software to, by default, refuse to post any message
that's more than 75% quoted material...


Yes.

As a matter fact, I remember a couple of newsservers I frequently used a
couple of years ago that actually did that. Annoying for the first couple of
postings, enlightenig for the rest of my usenet experience.

I wish professional use of e-Mail communication would adhere to that basic
rule. It would make life easier and less painful to read some people's
e-Mail. Malformed, malquoted, blinking tags and all that with virtually no
reference to original mail.

Peter Lemken
DF5JT
Berlin

--
Toleranz, das war doch diese resultierende Verhaltensweise, wenn man sich
zwischen Abscheu und Mitleid nicht entscheiden kann.

(Andreas Kroschel in de.alt.talk.unmut)