«

I know that the *correct* way to reply to nntp posts is bottom posting(heh
sounds painfull), but what is the standard for email?

T.N.O. wrote:
> I know that the *correct* way to reply to nntp posts is bottom
> posting(heh sounds painfull), but what is the standard for email?

Who says it's correct ? Who says what is correct for email ? It's individual
taste. But rules to go by ? Bah.

On the scale of things that are important in life's existence, is it really
that important ?

"KS" wrote
> Who says it's correct ? Who says what is correct for email ? It's
individual
> taste. But rules to go by ? Bah.

RFCs say it is correct to bottom post in usenet, I believe.

> On the scale of things that are important in life's existence, is it
really
> that important ?

no, but it is nice to be correct.

"Rider" <> wrote in message
news:bjoeub$b88$...
> I've always thought email was top post. Thats what I do and everyone that
> responds to my emails does the same.
>
>
> "T.N.O." <> wrote in message
> news:bjo6ls$l5qkf$...
> > I know that the *correct* way to reply to nntp posts is bottom
posting(heh
> > sounds painfull), but what is the standard for email?
> >
> >
>
>

And I just top posted in usenet by mistake LOL

"m00se" wrote
> > but what is the standard for email?
> >
> http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
> Is a good place to start.

thanks, although it was interesting reading, it was as useless as asking
Paul for some money...

got any other RFC's for me to read today teacher?

T.N.O. wrote:
> "m00se" wrote
>
> thanks, although it was interesting reading, it was as useless as asking
> Paul for some money...
>
> got any other RFC's for me to read today teacher?
>
>

LOL no, that was simply googles first answer

T.N.O. allegedly said:

> I know that the *correct* way to reply to nntp posts is bottom posting(heh
> sounds painfull), but what is the standard for email?

Depends.

News postings are about discussion.

Work e-mail is more often an audit trail of a stream of comunication.

They server different purposes. For this reason:

I bottom-post in newsgroups...to enable easy understanding of the points
being made.

I top-post in e-mail to add my comments - in their entirety - to those which
have gone before.

steve allegedly said:

> I top-post in e-mail to add my comments - in their entirety - to those
> which have gone before.

....unless the e-mail requires a detailed response more in line with a
discussion.....in which case I bottom post.

In article <0HQ7b.496$>, steve <> wrote:
>steve allegedly said:
>
>> I top-post in e-mail to add my comments - in their entirety - to those
>> which have gone before.
>
>....unless the e-mail requires a detailed response more in line with a
>discussion.....in which case I bottom post.

... don't you mean "interleaf post" ? ... only sane way to deal with detail by
detail comment

Bruce


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oook !
NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !

"T.N.O." <> wrote in message
news:bjo6ls$l5qkf$...
> I know that the *correct* way to reply to nntp posts is bottom posting(heh
> sounds painfull), but what is the standard for email?

Since emails are one on one, and when you reply to something that you've
obviously read first. Then you and the other party already know what the
original message said. That's why I think it's better to top post for one
to one emails.

Because people don't always know what people are replying to the newsgroups,
that's why it's better to bottom post for people to follow what's going on
instead of having to dart all over the place in a post that could well have
over 6 replies in it. Which is a lot better if all 6 replies are one under
each other instead of all over the place when someone adds a top post to a
thread.

E. Scrooge