Top posting - was Re: sendmail vulnerability

[Jeff Macdonald]

On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 15:45, Derek Martin wrote:
> More often than not, said aggravation is, I think, the result of the
> ego of the OP being unwilling to take being corrected/criticized.

I'm more than willing to be corrected/criticized. I don't think it is
fair for someone to extrapolate a general statement into state of mind.
It seems that some list members believe I'm a completely lazy bastard
with no consideration to other list members based on one statement I
made. That statement about laziness was referring to the time we all
take a shortcut, irregardless of the consequences. Well I hope that my
future actions will speak louder than my previous words.

> Otherwise a polite acknowledgement is all that is needed.  Mike's
> original request to avoid top posting was terse but polite, and should
> be viewed by all for what it is: a polite request for people to
> conform to what most agree is the modus operandi of list posters here
> on this list, and in general good netiquette.  The OP can ignore such
> requests if he/she wants to (though should expect full well to be
> castigated further in the future for not complying), but arguing about
> it is pointless.

I'm not choosing to ignore it. I'm not for top posting. I'm for trying
to find a way to prevent it. I agree that my desire to have option for
the mail user agent help prevent top posting is not a substitute for
education. But it can't hurt either.

Note: I'm assuming that OP refers to me, if it meant as a reference to
top posters in general then I'm sorry for my confusion.

-- 
Jeff Macdonald <jeff.macdonald at virtualbuilder.com>