[Tfug] top/bottom and middle posting

[Bexley Hall]

Hi, Rob,

--- On Thu, 2/19/09, Robert Hunter <hunter at tfug.org> wrote:

> Don, you make many valid points.  I suppose I may have gone
> a bit too far by giving the impression that I think 
> block-quoting is obsolete.

Actually, I thought the snail-mail analogy was very
appropriate.  Unfortunately, in my reply, I concentrated
too much on the *details* of why the behaviour associated
then vs. now is different instead of *summarizing*.

To that point: people invested considerably more time (IMO)
"writing a letter" than they do, now, replying to emails.
While this is unfortunate (and, IMO, explains much of the
current "bad"? behaviour), it is, still, orders of magnitude
better than how *phone* conversations are handled!

> In fact, what I was trying to say is that the current
> default behavior of mail programs to quote the entire
> message was neither satisfactory, nor necessary.
> The top vs. bottom posting argument is obviated when
> you remove this default quoting behavior from you mail
> program.

<grin>  Agreed -- though having the mail client do *less*
somehow seems not to be in the spirit of a "solution"  :>

> I am, however, of the opinion that too often you see
> posts that consist almost entirely of one or two-line
> exchanges that make for rather poor reading.

Understood.  Though, I think, it depends on the subject
matter under discussion.
 
> In regard to quoting, there must be a better way than the
> usual "hit reply, and then trim" routine.

Agreed.  But, it's hard to imagine how one could add
intelligence (algorithms) to the mailer that could
automated any of this.

> For example, Gmail labs has a "quote selected text
> in your reply" feature, which is a step in the right
> direction, but not nearly enough, because there is no way
> to create multiple selections within a single message,
> nor ones which span multiple posts.

Exactly.  You could obtain the same benefit with
a suitable macro in your mail reader -- without
the restriction on the "single selection".

> Finally, I like the idea of mail messages containing
> cross-references rather than quoted text.

I think that would raise the bar for mail readers
considerably.  Note that one of the joys of email
is that it is "just text" -- no funky encodings
required.  This lets mail readers implement varied
amounts of featurism without being "crippled"

> Unfortunately, I do not see an obvious way
> to do this.  Whereas referencing a post is easily done by
> Message-ID, I am not sure how you would reference a
> specific portion of it,

I'm sure you could use some markup language construct to
make it work.  But, then you walk away from the beauty
of "pure text".

> particularly when you are lacking some sort of
> mark-and-select control.  Nevertheless, if someone
> can figure this out, I think cross-referencing
> would a be superior method for many reasons.
> 
> PS. I'd like to hear about the stone-age postage
> sometime! ;-)

Note that, by definition, our mail system "back then"
was not prehistoric -- since anything we wrote (i.e.,
carved onto tablets) represented history.  :>  Of
course, the paleontologists are puzzled trying to
figure out why so many of these ancient writings
begin with the phrase "Dear John"...

Mail delivery was sporadic -- sort of like it is
becoming now!  What with the damn glaciers, asteroids
slamming into the planet, mass extinctions, etc. you
never really knew when the mail would get picked up
*or* delivered!

Of course, crossing the land bridge from asia to this
continent cause all sorts of grief!  So many of these
folks forgot to fill out change-of-address forms!
Mail would back up for eras before it could all get
sorted out!

And, as the tectonic plates started shifting, it got
to be difficult to keep track of who your neighbors
were!  You'd go to bed with Joe Rodriguez as your
neighbor one day and find Kazo Yamaguchi's house
there come the next morning!

Package handling hasn't improved much in the eons
since then.  I can't tell you how many times I'd open
a letter only to find crumbs of stone!  I mailed a
package of quartz plates home, once, and was puzzled
when my folks thanked me for the box of *sand*!  :<

We flirted with air delivery but found it to be
too costly as well as unreliable.  Damn pteradactyl's
kept tipping over when you strapped a package around
their neck.  Then, just as we thought we had solved
*that* problem (PostMaster Ogg was quite a clever fellow!),
the damn birds had their millenial migration and
were never seen again (I suspect the folks living
there 1,000 years hence were quite surprised to see
all these odd creatures dropping out of the sky
with packages of stale fruitcake, etc. tied around 
their necks.

For stamps, we used the heads of various animals.
Unfortunately, some idiot decided that Wooly
Mammoths would be used for regular first class
letters.  This had a tremendous impact on operating
costs as the stamps were heavier than the letters!
(it also contributed to the early demise of the
mammoths)

OTOH, some things were a lot easier to deal with.
For example, our ZIP code back then was *1* -- none
of this 5+4 nonsense!  And, addressing the envelopes
was quite easy -- usually just the recipient's first
name and continent of residence were enough to get the
letter delivered!

Come to think of it, the current postal system seems
to be rapidly converging with that original system!
Names and addresses are giving away to 9, 14, 21
digit numbers; *real* mail is only delivered once
a week (the other days being used for advertising
purposes); lost/damaged packages; etc.

<shrug>