From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28589 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2012 16:55:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 28580 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2012 16:55:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,KHOP_THREADED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from enficsets1.metaswitch.com (HELO ENFICSETS1.metaswitch.com) (192.91.191.38) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:55:53 +0000 Received: from ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk (172.18.10.94) by ENFICSETS1.metaswitch.com (172.18.4.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.4; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:55:07 +0000 Received: from ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::b06d:4d13:5f63:3715]) by ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::d5d5:c683:a3be:3a19%18]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:55:50 +0000 From: Adam Dinwoodie To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Subject: RE: The losing battle of TOFU Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:55:00 -0000 Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:53:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20121102160617.GA12304@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: <20121102160617.GA12304@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2012-q4/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 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 defa= ult > 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 sen= se 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 na= me. That's a standard Microsoft Outlook option. You can fairly easily set it u= p to add those brackets automatically when you add a comment interleaved in a re= ply. 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 v= im 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 threa= ding 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 Gmai= l, there's a button to expand the quoted context; Facebook just doesn't includ= e 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.