Re: Could we drop the bottom-posting rule?

> Le 11 mai 2021 à 09:11, Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com> a écrit : > > Sure, why not: email clients are decent enough to hide quoted sections > anyway 👍 > > Heck, even my phone can read top-posts, and the rest of the folks (reddit, > mostly) use https://externals.io/ anyway 🤷 > > Feel free to call me out for top-posting this 😛 Then, after a first top-post, someone comes and middle-post, and you have to guess whether they’re bottom-answering the top part or top-answering the bottom part. Or both. Sure, email clients are decent enough to “hide quoted sections” (which I read: “hide the mess”), but not to sort them. —Claude > > On Mon, May 10, 2021, 23:52 Kamil Tekiela <tekiela246@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Internals, >> >> Could we drop the bottom-posting rule? >> >> Almost all new contributors fall into this trap and reply to a thread by >> top-posting, only to get chastised by someone else on the list. It's really >> difficult to remember to delete the default reply. Mail clients don't make >> it easy for us; it's hidden by default. Bottom-posting makes reading the >> thread much more difficult too. The actual reply gets lost in between the >> quoted content. I often get confused about what is new and what was >> quoted. Many modern clients are designed to handle top-posting and don't >> handle bottom-posting well. People are usually used to it and they read >> from top to bottom. I don't know if in the past some mail clients defaulted >> to bottom-posting but right now it just seems like an unnecessary >> annoyance. >> >> If you want to quote someone then it makes sense to copy a part of the >> message and then add a reply below, but forcing people to remove the >> default reply from the mail client and then add the whole previous message >> on top of your own reply isn't very productive. It wastes time and screen >> space. >> >> Could we please change this rule or at least stop enforcing it? >> Do people actually have mail clients that don't automatically hide the >> previous conversation? If not, then I think we can let people top-post. >> >> Regards, >> Kamil >>