What is the proper email etiquette for replies.
To reply above the original message or below?
Where should the signature go assuming it is proper to reply above the
original message?
Just curious?
jawdoc wrote:
> What is the proper email etiquette for replies.
> To reply above the original message or below?
> Where should the signature go assuming it is proper to reply above the
> original message?
> Just curious?
>
It depends on who you ask.
Some prefer to have the responses below the original message. This way
the reader has an opportunity to review prior to reading the response
the context to which the response applies.
If you as part of your response provide clear description such that
there is no need for a copy of the prior email, you might as well reply
without including a copy of the email to which you are responding.
AK
On 2005-11-01, AK
> jawdoc wrote:
>
>> What is the proper email etiquette for replies.
>> To reply above the original message or below?
>> Where should the signature go assuming it is proper to reply above the
>> original message?
>> Just curious?
>>
>
> It depends on who you ask.
If you ask people who don't know anything or who are too lazy or poorly-
trained to edit properly, they will say it doesn't matter.
I have seen some people who work in a completely-top-quoting culture
revert from contextual, but it is bizarre. I guess if you get bombarded
by the clueless day after day after day you just give in.
>
> Some prefer to have the responses below the original message. This way
> the reader has an opportunity to review prior to reading the response
> the context to which the response applies.
A: No
Q: Is it ok to top-quote?
Anyone who has given some thought to things will prefer contextual
quoting.
http://www.html-faq.com/etiquette/?toppost
Of course there are huge numbers of people who are too lazy or are too
poorly trained on their editor to trim unnecessary text, so even when
you get them to bottom quote they tend to do it wrong, not interspersing
passages with their responses, leaving signatures in, etc. etc.
It is a sad state of affairs that a single mail client, Outlook, has
destroyed email and newsgroup conversation by the simple strategem of
placing the cursor at the top of the message above the quoted text.
>
> If you as part of your response provide clear description such that
> there is no need for a copy of the prior email, you might as well reply
> without including a copy of the email to which you are responding.
And that is completely bizarre. It is totally wrong, IMO.
Now someone who has one or two email conversations a week, or who
only talks about one thing at a time, or who will only talk about the
same thing with one correspondent, could probably get along like
that. But why?
--
Mike Heins
Perusion -- Expert Interchange Consulting http://www.perusion.com/
Be patient. God isn't finished with me yet. -- unknown
Mike Heins
[deleted]
> A: No
> Q: Is it ok to top-quote?
You mean top-*post*. "top-quote" (a rather unusual term) is somewhat
OK, assuming that it effectively means interleaved posting (i.e.
(partial) quote, (partial) response, quote, response, etc.), not (real)
bottom-posting (i.e. full quote, full response).
[Several similar typos deleted.]
Mike Heins
> On 2005-11-01, AK
[deleted]
> > If you as part of your response provide clear description such that
> > there is no need for a copy of the prior email, you might as well reply
> > without including a copy of the email to which you are responding.
>
> And that is completely bizarre. It is totally wrong, IMO.
Exactly which part of "If you as part of your response provide clear
description" didn't you understand"? I.e. the whole point of quoting is
to provide context for your response. There are other ways to provide
context, i.e. as part of the response.
> Now someone who has one or two email conversations a week, or who
> only talks about one thing at a time, or who will only talk about the
> same thing with one correspondent, could probably get along like
> that. But why?
Why not (when it is possible/appropriate)? People writing real letters
don't quote the letters they are responding to, do they? Then why do
they *have* to do that in email? Just because it is easy doesn't make it
the right or only way to do it.
On 2005-11-01, Frank Slootweg
> Mike Heins
>> On 2005-11-01, AK
> [deleted]
>> > If you as part of your response provide clear description such that
>> > there is no need for a copy of the prior email, you might as well reply
>> > without including a copy of the email to which you are responding.
>>
>> And that is completely bizarre. It is totally wrong, IMO.
>
> Exactly which part of "If you as part of your response provide clear
> description" didn't you understand"?
Because it is difficult to do in a fashion which is clear enough, and
because what is "clear description" is quite subjective. Some people may
feel "WRT your email of Oct. 24" is a clear enough description.
> I.e. the whole point of quoting is
> to provide context for your response. There are other ways to provide
> context, i.e. as part of the response.
Nothing anywhere near as clear as simply quoting your reply properly.
>
>> Now someone who has one or two email conversations a week, or who
>> only talks about one thing at a time, or who will only talk about the
>> same thing with one correspondent, could probably get along like
>> that. But why?
>
> Why not (when it is possible/appropriate)? People writing real letters
> don't quote the letters they are responding to, do they?
They didn't have the technology then, did they?
> Then why do they *have* to do that in email? Just because it is easy
> doesn't make it the right or only way to do it.
It is demonstrably the best way. Is it the *only* way? Well, the only
right way, at least in my opinion. 8-)
--
Mike Heins
Perusion -- Expert Interchange Consulting http://www.perusion.com/
Be patient. God isn't finished with me yet. -- unknown