public inbox for cygwin-talk@cygwin.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Adam Dinwoodie <Adam.Dinwoodie@metaswitch.com>
To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List <cygwin-talk@cygwin.com>
Subject: RE: The losing battle of TOFU
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:55:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CE9C056E12502146A72FD81290379E9A5B9FC9A1@ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121102160617.GA12304@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> This isn't really Cygwin-related but I wonder if the battle against TOFU is
> well and truly lost.  Very few people that I know use it.  It's not even on
> anyone's radar as something that should be done.  Many email readers default
> to it.

Personally, I love the fact that the Cygwin list still (attempts to) enforce
interleaving.  It feels like the last bastion of readability and common sense
over laziness.

> At NetApp, it's basically the wild west when it comes to quoting style.  Some
> people use the tried-and-true, "just forward it back along with email
> headers".

Which is more-or-less fine for things that aren't going to go on a crawlable
website, and a nightmare for things that are.

> Some people invent their own style, like bracketing replies with their name.

That's a standard Microsoft Outlook option.  You can fairly easily set it up to
add those brackets automatically when you add a comment interleaved in a reply.
Not sure if Microsoft came up with the idea, but I strongly suspect that's one
of the reasons it caught on so.

(I have to use Outlook, but I have a practiced technique involving Cygwin vim
and /dev/clipboard for writing nicely quoted emails.)

> No one puts the quotes first and their replies after and hardly anyone
> (besides me) ever trims anything.

It's still the case that bottom-posting is normal for each message in threading
clients.  If you look at Gmail or Facebook, for example, they both put the more
recent replies below the older, and they both surpress the context (in Gmail,
there's a button to expand the quoted context; Facebook just doesn't include it
in replies at all, since it's always included the full context of previous
messages).

I think some form of quoting is still useful when you need to reply to
individual points, but I think that's fairly rare.  Now increasing numbers of
people use clients that thread conversations, I suspect we're just going to see
folk stopping quoting entirely except when they explicitly want to reply
separately to separate points.

  reply	other threads:[~2012-11-02 16:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-11-02 16:06 Christopher Faylor
2012-11-02 16:55 ` Adam Dinwoodie [this message]
2012-11-02 20:31 ` David Eisner
2012-11-02 20:38   ` Christopher Faylor

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CE9C056E12502146A72FD81290379E9A5B9FC9A1@ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk \
    --to=adam.dinwoodie@metaswitch.com \
    --cc=cygwin-talk@cygwin.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).