Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Bob Martin Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: Interleaved vs. top-posting Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 07:28:13 BST Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: X-Trace: individual.net XLhN2jiWkIqfcTNjy09KAA2/lQ/01i38Cx8t05x/UCshjbEWFy X-Orig-Path: BERLIN : news.individual.net Cancel-Lock: sha1:886FX41uWT55vAsuH8HC0ORoFD0= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:70178 in 720726 20140411 134419 Tim Chase wrote: >On 2014-04-11 13:59, Chris Angelico wrote: >> I have seen plenty of cultures where people are unaware of the value >> of interleaved/bottom posting, but so far, not one where anyone has >> actually required it. Not one. > >The only time I've seen top-posting required (though there was >nothing about trimming/dropping the content from the bottom) was on >some lists for blind users where they wanted the new content at the >top of the email rather than having to wade through lots of content >they'd heard previously. The actual context was usually either given >by in-sentence referencing to the topic, or the subject-heading >(blind folks seem to have an incredible memory for things sighted >folks are usually too lazy to remember). I read IBM's internal forums from 1978 on (on VM/CMS). Top posting was the norm where quoted text was included, though quoting wasn't necessary as there was a means to display the post being answered.