<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 12:53 PM 3/8/2007, Jason Kohles wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Mar 8, 2007, at 5:09 AM,
Goetz Bock wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear subscribers,<br><br>
while totally of topic, could you please _try_ to write mails that
can<br>
be read with a good old text (as in text/plain) only mail reader?<br>
</blockquote>[snip]<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I've intentionally placed my
part on top, as it's unrelated to the thread.<br>
And I've kept an edited and annotated version of the mail I replied
to<br>
underneath to illustrate how it looks in my MUA (mutt).<br>
</blockquote>Ok, so you don't like the way this mail is displayed by your
mail reader, and therefore in order to get mail displayed in your mail
reader the way you want it, the rest of the world must
change?</blockquote><br>
Surprised at this or no, this is a very long-standing issue, from BBSes
to usenet to maillists and on to today.<br><br>
Two main issues:<br><br>
Top-posting distorts the stream of conversation. Double conventions
_really_ distorts the stream of conversations. The
"industry-standard" (with all the drawbacks of that term intact
here) way of replying to posts is to use bottom-posting, so that replies
are time-ordered, or using interspersed replies to lengthy sets of
questions.<br><br>
Not every mail reader can handle every text/non-text formatting
option. Thus it borders on 'rude' to force acceptance of your
favorite elaboration of modes of expression. At the very least have
your email program sent mixed "plain text" plus
"gussied-up goo". <br><br>
The key is "what guarantees that the conversation can continue in a
recognizable and useful way?"<br>
</font></body>
</html>