TMPLee@DOCKMASTER.ARPA (10/18/86)
I know this will probably fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes): I surely would appreciate it if people did *NOT* include copies of what they are replying to in their replies -- messages full of >>'s etc. are hard to read, several times longer than they need to be, and clog up the net. Just because you have a mail system that with the touch of a finger will copy the original message and surround it with funny marks is no excuse for exercising that option. And by the second or third time around its only stupid. time and space are valuable
Mly.G.Pogo%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Soron) (10/18/86)
I second your plea for brevity. I just read a message on this list that had ">"s _four levels deep_. Utterly ridiculous. -------
bobg@paladin.UUCP (Bob Goldberg) (10/21/86)
In article <861018063639.282231@DOCKMASTER.ARPA>, TMPLee@DOCKMASTER.ARPA writes: > I know this will probably fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes): I surely > would appreciate it if people did *NOT* include copies of what they are > replying to in their replies -- messages full of >>'s etc. are hard to > read, several times longer than they need to be, and clog up the net. > Just because you have a mail system that with the touch of a finger will > copy the original message and surround it with funny marks is no excuse > for exercising that option. And by the second or third time around its > only stupid. > I agree that unproperly edited messages do, in fact, slow things down a bit, but there is one MAJOR problem. My system does not always recieve EVERY posting. it may get lost in the cracks somewhere, or who knows what.... in any case, many postings do not have a parent posting that was sent down the net successfully. A short summary helps in those cases. Bob Goldberg -- From the world of Paladin: ihnp4!gargoyle!paladin!bobg (Bob Goldberg)