[Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] mailing list good practice (user's and software's)

André Pirard A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com
Thu Sep 19 21:52:37 UTC 2013

On 2013-09-17 01:40, Glenn Plas wrote :
> On 2013-09-17 01:02, André Pirard wrote:
>> On 2013-09-16 11:52, Glenn Plas wrote :
>>> If you want to be serious about this then a new topic should be
>>> initiated by sending a new mail instead of a reply with a new
>>> subject.  Every decent mailclient out there -usually- does not use
>>> the subject to 'thread' mails. instead it uses certain fields in the
>>> mail headers.  I noticed that mail-man (the mailing list handler of
>>> THIS list) does not seem to add those headers (in fact, they seem to
>>> be removed from outgoing mails, I cannot find those fields like below).
>>> example of those are :
>>> References: <20130914070031.83C7A1561AD6 at server21>
>>> <CANHB50fV+JQ_DYnu91QYaURcRyAKk-pqbHGFMQmYzQZAeC=Xwg at mail.gmail.com>
>>> <5236AF60.2050502 at byte-consult.be>
>>> In-Reply-To: <5236AF60.2050502 at byte-consult.be>
>>> This is what the (E)mailers usually use when exchanging mail
>>> correspondence (non mailing list) when hitting 'Reply'
>>> To be complete:  top-posting (putting comments ABOVE the previous
>>> messages) is usually really a big nono in the mailing list fields.  
>>> You should put follow-up comments BELOW the original mail. 
>>> Personally, It doesn't bother me too much, but on plenty of mailing
>>> lists people go absolutely nuts over that fact , more true on long
>>> email exchanges, as you need to read a long reply from bottom to top
>>> in order to follow the conversation.   Of course many clients let
>>> you sort using the subject field.
>>> If you make sure to bottom-post, automatically you'll be removing
>>> the non-relevant sections at the top to compact the response.  I
>>> admit , when being too quick, I'm a sinner too against that rule
>>> once in a while.  Some lists have their own requirements, but in
>>> general bottom-posting is considered Netiquette, top-posting isn't. 
>>> It makes you scroll twice to follow a conversation. (go down to find
>>> the start, then read up).
>>> English : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
>> You're right, my main gripe is against the mailing list software
>> mailman itself because it does not allow HTML. It does archive a HTML
>> version of the archive but when you look at it on the server you see
>> HTML code.
>> By "allow HTML", I mean "simple HTML": text style, lists, tables etc,
>> not eccentric showy stuff.
>> I've sent an e-mail to mailman about this and they replied
>>   * that we, technical people, do not need HTML because we don't use
>>     it much.
> I think you misunderstood my mail.  At the very bottom of that partly
> quoted mail I stated : .  I am very much against using html in mails. 
> I believe HTML belongs on a website, not a mail.  I prefer
> plain-text..  Sorry :)
> Glenn
No, I didn't misunderstand your e-mail and I said 'You're right'.
My topic is not what the users do but what mailman does and that's why
my quote is partial.
I restored the full English text here above, and no, what I had read
does not contain "I am very much against using html in mails" and my
text was not related to that phrase.
I collaborated with the ietf guys for e-mail and MIME+HTML and I can
tell you they are not dumb-asses.
Millions of people are using what they did.
People forget that the first reason to be of HTML is HT, hypertext
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext>, which is as elegant as
necessary to write sensible text, relegating with links the details to
further reading. That does not belong only to Web site; some  people
even wrote HT books. It was also used in the precursors Gopher, WAIS etc.
I sometimes use titles and index in long e-mails. I rarely write Web
pages to send someone a message.
What the ietf intended to
     include in e-mail is the simple HTML I speak of, not the
extravagant one.
                  It allows tables to be included in e-mail. It allows
HT links
to be used without interspersing text with ugly URLs.  It allows basic
formating. Your
                  reference, which isn't at all against HTML, advocates
        the <blockquote> as a better way to quote text
to avoid paragraphs ending up like this one
                or the last one you quote.  <blockquote> certainly does
not belong to websites!!!
See following e-mail.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130919/93fc6af7/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list