full-disclosure - Top posting [was: MM

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sat Sep 10 02:21:57 2005
From: nick at virus-l.demon.co.uk (Nick FitzGerald)
Subject: Top posting [was: MM - #$%@ Kill Google!]

Dee Holtsclaw wrote:

> It's also quite a pain to inline post for those unfortunates stuck with 
> BillCo's LookOut! The quote formatting in many versions tends to get confused 
> when you try to insert new text and you often end up with a tangled mess.

So the rest of us should "suffer" to make life easier for people stupid 
enough to use about the crappiest MUA ever made?

Gimme a break...

If you "have to" use Outlook and thus properly quoting and trimming 
your messages is "too hard", just go boil your head, or at least be 
polite enough to the rest of us to simply not post.

The abortion that is message quoting and top-posting in Outlook is 
largely due to an over-zealous approach to its early design to make it 
even shittier than Lotus Notes was.  Given that, it is outstandingly 
successful, but is utter rubbish for use in traditional threaded 
mailing list conversations which require an entirely different approach 
and mindset for _efficient_ information exchange and debate.

Top-posted, non-inline replies are fine for typical "corporate" Email 
exchanges where it is commonly the case that a single, and usually 
simple, issue is at hand:

   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   To: Tom
   From: Mary
   Subject: Monthly sales figures?

   I need them by midday Thursday to work through on my flight to DC!

   --------------------------------------------------------------------

   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   To: Mary
   From: Tom
   Subject: Re: Monthly sales figures?

   No problems.  Dick is helping and we'll have them done before that.

   [red]
   To: Tom
   From: Mary
   Subject: Monthly sales figures?

   I need them by midday Thursday to work through on my flight to DC!
   --------------------------------------------------------------------

   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   To: Tom
   From: Mary
   CC: Dick
   Subject: Re: Monthly sales figures?

   That's great, but HR has just bumped my DC flight to the red-eye so
   I can assist in interviewing the new regional sales manager there. 
   I need the report to read on the flight so you'll have to get it to
   me by Email before 6:00am Thursday.

   [blue]
   To: Mary
   From: Tom
   Subject: Re: Monthly sales figures?

   No problems.  Dick is helping and we'll have them done before that.
   [/blue]

   [red]
   To: Tom
   From: Mary
   Subject: Monthly sales figures?

   I need them by midday Thursday to work through on my flight to DC!
   --------------------------------------------------------------------

...ad nauseum.

The point of such quoting is that at any point you can CC in someone 
not part of the conversation and they can see the whole story (so long 
as they don't mind reading "backwards").  In (most) public mailing 
lists, that function is provided by official archives of the list 
traffic.

For those in the main thread of such top-posting conversations, all 
that matters is the latest addition, "conveniently" put at the top.

Sadly for top-posters, that model simply does not apply to typical 
mailing list traffic.  Many of us who read these lists simultaneously 
track _dozens_ of conversations PER LIST and do so for many lists.  Top 
posting is thus very disruptive of the "normal", very long-term 
historically institutionalized and thus EXPECTED conversational style 
of such lists.

It is also totally contrary to normal logical thought and reading 
processes for Western languages.

So, if anyone wants to take part in discussions in lists like this, 
don't be surprised if you are ignored, flamed or both, for "breaking 
the rules" because of your choice of top-posting and/or non-inline 
(where appropriate; it's not always) commentary style.  You get that 
response not JUST because "it's wrong" but because you are 
significantly disrupting the ability of many who otherwise give their 
free time and often considerable expertise as free advice, to do so.

Personally, it has got to the point where I often just delete top-
posted replies to messages in threads I'm interested in following 
because the mental exercise of working out what the heck part or parts 
of what has gone before are being responded to is just not worth the 
effort.

Regards,

Nick FitzGerald