Re: Thunderbird

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<41acd6e8$0$24380$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> Niall Litchfield wrote:
> > "Frank van Bortel" <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:cohaic$lpf$1_at_news3.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
> >
> >>Niall Litchfield wrote:
> >>[snip!]
> >>
> >>>The culture I had in mind was email replies, especially in Outlook
> >>>enabled environments ( something like 80% of corporate environments).
> >>>These invariably top post (and don't cut: and don't edit, and don't
> >>>spell...~)
> >>>
> >>
> >>Easy to fix, just like in T'bird, Netscape, Opera, whatever.
> >>It's in the options menu, somewhere (sorry, I try to keep my
> >>own machines as MS clean as possible: no Outlook here...)
> >>It's just the default that is top-posting.
> >
> >
> > I don't think that it is a bad default *for email*, I also don't think it
> > wrong to imagine that usenet might have a similar set of social conventions
> > as email. I *do* think that it is *as* bad to imagine that social
> > conventions are *rules* as it is to ignore conventions when they are pointed
> > out.
>
> All true (though I'm still intrigued about the idea of top-posting in
> email being OK).

I think typical email in companies is:

Person sends email.
Someone responds with a short answer.
Iterate.

In this scenario, top posting makes sense, since there is very little context to change through the iterations, and it is all there together for subsequent examination if necessary. When each recipient opens the mail, the place to start reading is right there (or an attachment...).

The key is that the answers are short, or if they are longer, they are a discourse rather than a point-by-point refutation. Or a tirade :-O I wonder if this is derived from the management style of the company that writes Outlook? Ballmer sends a memo and everyone replies "Yes, Sir!" And sends down their own memos, and so on, to the guy who's still wondering why manholes are round as he roundfiles them.

I have been amused by lengthy iterations where the mail has been set to indent original message, so the columns become very narrow.

I have been unamused that this format of communication devolves into non-communication - the amount of actual give-and-take that is the essence of communication is small, simply due to the format.

But at least it is not as bad as online chat. That has _too much_ give-and-take, too fast.

>
> > BTW I cannot find anyway to make either OutlookXP or OutlookExpress 6
> > default to bottom posting. it certainly isn't in the options menu somewhere,
> > at least in the sense of somewhere accessible.
>
> No, I don't think it's there either. I mostly gave up on using
> signatures completely in OE, precisely because it always slammed it in
> the top, and I was forever having to cut-and-paste it down the bottom...
> it hardly seemed worthy of the name 'automation'!! Maybe there's a
> registry hack of some sort?

Couldn't find it in Outlook 2002, it has lots of options but bottom posting isn't one of them.

>
> As a small plug for Thunderbird, it bottom-posts by default. It's a
> very, very nice tool indeed.
>
> Regards
> HJR
jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://automobilemag.com/in_gear/0412_in_gear/