List Netiquette RFCs (Yes, they exist!)

[dvcorbin at optonline.net]

PLEASE SEE BELOW:

----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Merchberger <zmerch at 30below.com>
Date: Thursday, February 24, 2005 2:10 pm
Subject: List Netiquette RFCs (Yes, they exist!)

> Rumor has it that Computer Collector Newsletter may have mentioned 
> these words:
> >Sorry everyone -- that was supposed to be a private reply to Jay.
> 
> Oops... ;-)
> 
> >LOL, but now that it's out there ... I assume 'top post' has 
> something to do
> >with where the replies are vs. the original message ...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> >  like this one for
> >example.  Then again, it's not like I'm a list newbie, yet I've 
> never seen 
> >this
> >complaint before.
> 
> That's because we're generally a kind sort... we'd rather argue 
> about guns, 
> carburetors, explosives... ;-)
> 
> >Since everyone uses their email differently, I think it's pretty 
> silly for
> >someone to say that his own preferred method is right, and that 
> other methods
> >are frowned on.
> 
> However, you say that as if it's solely a 'preference' -> and not 
> an 
> 'Internet Standard.' There *is* an RFC about email Netiquette: RFC 
> 1855.
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
> 
> Specifically, section 3.1.1 part 10:
> 
> - If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
>   summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
>   enough text of the original to give a context.  This will make
>   sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
>   Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
>   postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
>   response to a message before seeing the original.  Giving context
>   helps everyone.  But do not include the entire original!
> 
> =-=-=-=-=
> 
> Please take into account: 1) I'm not trying to take sides, become 
> a 'list 
> overlord' (That's Jay's Job! ;-) or start [yet another] flamewar. 
> I'm just 
> pointing out there's a lot more to it than just preference and 
> there 
> actually is good logical reasoning behind the top-post vs. inline 
> post vs. 
> bottom post vs. psychic post vs. ad nauseum post replying methods.
> 
> Laterz,
> Roger "Merch" Merchberger
> 
> P.S.  the method of 'top posting' has a tendency for the 'replier' 
> to not 
> notice they're not trimming their replies - including your 9-line 
> sig that 
> you replied from yourself with and left it in both times...
> ;-)  It's along the same lines of: "Be Kind To Jay" and all that, 
> of which, 
> might I say, you shouldn't be feigning naivete'...
> 
> --
> Roger "Merch" Merchberger   | Anarchy doesn't scale well. -- Me
> zmerch at 30below.com.         |
> SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
> 
> 

I AM WONDERING IT I SHOULD HAVE TRIMMED THIS????????