69233Re: Editing protocols (OT)
- Feb 9, 2006Historically (can one write "historically" in connection with such a
recent phenomenon as the Internet?) the norm with replies to
e-mail--and, by extension, to lists--has been to remove all
superfluous material. I was online as soon as public access to the
Internet (i.e. to those without government or academic affiliation)
was permitted, and all the books on the subject of Internet procedures
of that time mentioned trimming excess from e-mail.
Though this sounds like one of those "Back when I was a lad..."
stories, almost everything was command line driven, but that was OK
because we were all used to DOS, if not even more "primitive"
operating systems. I still like command line, in fact. The issue with
e-mail is both practical (bandwidth) and procedural (it's annoying to
readers who receive the digest form).
My first machine had 1 MG of RAM--which marks me very much as a
Johnny-come-lately, given that the really early home computers had 64
k or less. I now have 50 times more RAM than I had hard-disk capacity
back then. This statistic is somehow both obscurely pleasing and
> Protocol on other lists? That is interesting. If you do a search on
> email etiquette you might find that your approach of (a) top posting
> versus bottom posting
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>