[Hallicrafters] Re: Hallicrafters digest, Vol 4 #334 - 10 msgs [Posting Request - Please Read]

[John Cusick]

On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 07:30, Barry L. Ornitz wrote:
> John Cusick wrote:
> 
> > A suggestion: Instead of starting a brand new email and 
> > taking the time to re-write the Subject with a Re: "Subject" 
> > and then cutting and pasting from the old message, why not 
> > just hit "Reply To All" and then cut out the portions you 
> > are not replying to? 
> 
> John is missing the point here.  Note the subject line of this 
> post.  This is what happens when you "reply to sender" or 
> "reply to all" when you get the messages in digest form.
> I added the correct subject in brackets.  Would you know what 
> the message was about without it from merely reading the 
> subject?
>  

No, actually, I was missing my own point :( 

I never even looked at the subject line before I sent it and did not
realize that it came from the digest list.

... snip> 
> > I believe it actually takes less time than starting a 
> > seperate brand-new message and it only takes one or two 
> > messages to get the hang of it :)
> > 
> > I'm not complaining, this is just a suggestion.
> > 
...

 
> 
> Again this all relates to the differences between individual 
> messages and digests.  With an individual message, all the 
> extra quoting at the bottom is not really a problem (except 
> for the added cost of the wasted bandwidth and the extra 
> storage space needed for archives).  You just kill the message 
> after you have read the beginning.  But for digest readers, 
> you have to wade through all the garbage to get to the next 
> message.  [It becomes garbage after the third or fourth time 
> you have to read it with nesting up to six levels deep.]  How
> does your email do threading on digests?

I was not taking digest readers into account. In fact, now that you
pointed to my screw-up, I didnt even realize that I was replying to a
digest message. Again, it helps if you pay attention to what you're
doing, as I did not.

Digest readers, of course, are in a totally different situation.

> 
> This particular post is not a good example of the way to do 
> things properly.  But look at my previous post on PCB's.  Note 
> that I have quoted parts of earlier messages in the text of my 
> message.  Doesn't it make far more sense when reading a reply 
> to know exactly what part of a previous message is being 
> replied to, and isn't it easier to not have to read the entire 
> previous message again and again?
> 

Actually, this post was an excellent example of what not to do: Do not
fail to pay attention to your Subject: line

As for reading the previous message again and again, I could not agree
with you more, and that also was my point. Cut out the parts you don't
want.

In all other regards, I have followed it exactly, cut what I didn't
want, replied to what I wanted to, and posted only to the list without
starting a whole new message, thus taking less time cutting and pasting
from one message to another, only replying to the list, thus saving
bandwidth, while leaving the threading available, etc.

Please don't take this wrong, its not a flame or anything, think of it
as an experiment :-) in proof of concept, as well as an apology for not
following my own advice in my original post.

Regards to All,

John C.