From nobody Sun Jan 22 17:03:10 2023 X-Original-To: questions@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4P0KLR18CTz3N8Zp for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2023 17:03:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from doug@safeport.com) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [147.160.157.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "A1-48603", Issuer "A1-48603" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4P0KLQ6fHTz4M60 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2023 17:03:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from doug@safeport.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from fledge.watson.org (doug@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 30MH3AaE005855 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 22 Jan 2023 17:03:10 GMT (envelope-from doug@safeport.com) Received: from localhost (doug@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) with ESMTP id 30MH3AAv005851; Sun, 22 Jan 2023 17:03:10 GMT (envelope-from doug@safeport.com) X-Authentication-Warning: fledge.watson.org: doug owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 17:03:10 +0000 (UTC) From: doug Reply-To: doug@safeport.com To: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Out of order posting (was:: Load 0.20 on a freshly installed idle system) In-Reply-To: <20230122164001.2cbb15735780a9934989e951@sohara.org> Message-ID: References: <1889CB4C-4B11-4178-8446-97DA9E5EC35A@nimnet.asn.au> <20230122060127.GB8068@eureka.lemis.com> <20230122164001.2cbb15735780a9934989e951@sohara.org> List-Id: User questions List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-questions List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4P0KLQ6fHTz4M60 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:6405, ipnet:147.160.157.0/24, country:US] X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On Sun, 22 Jan 2023, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 02:18:00 -0500 > Paul Procacci wrote: > >> As per your last couple of statements; I agree. >> I won't however conform for the reasons already given. >> If I'm breaking the rules, "punish" me. > > It's not about rules, it's about effective communication, > interleaved posting and minimal quoting works better for this purpose in > mailing list and similar environments where the complete context is > available to all - however in corporate and other email chain like > environments full quoting is the only way to make context available and top > posting is most common. > >> The only thing people on this list would lose is the rare and occasional >> time I help someone. > > Why is it that some people take advice on effective communication > as an attempt to impose rules ? Etiquette then, if you like that word better. There is, IMO, no best way. Lawyers never delete anything, I guess (as I am not one) it gives a history of the entire conversation. Some of these emails I am asked to comment on might be several thousand words long. Do you think bottom posting is best in this case? If so it really does not matter, as that is not what they think.