hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

RE: message length protocols

  • Subject: RE: message length protocols
  • From: "Steve Szabo" <steve@familyszabo.com>
  • Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:50:26 -0500
  • Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
  • List-archive: <http://www.hort.net/lists/iris/> (Web Archive)
  • Thread-index: Ach1jA7ZrRHsWbcQTc+Jvr8es2UhZQAR9iTA
  • Thread-topic: [iris] message length protocols


Many of the lists I belong to frown upon anything less than including
the full text of previous messages with the reply. The reply should
always be at the top of the message, with the past messages available
for reference, should it the reference be needed. Those who place the
reply at the bottom, really do a disservice to themselves and others,
since that breaks the flow of the thread, and those who intersperse the
original with their comments, well, I'd like to think there is a special
place for them in the netherworld, especially when there is nothing to
differentiate the reply from the original message.

I'll agree with the person who mentioned those messages that are posted
with no reference are a bane to those who have not been religiously
following a thread. There is no point of reference.

Certainly, if you were to receive individual e-mails rather than a
digest, the practice of which you complain about would be much more
bearable as you read your e-mail. Digest make much less sense today than
they did years ago. Today we have ever increasing mailbox sizes, and
broadband is becoming more pervasive. Back in the day when a speedy
modem was 1200 baud or 9600 baud and up to about 28.8, mailbox sizes
were quite small, and you were charged by the minute for time online,
digests were the way to go. It was faster to grab one large message,
than the individual messages by themselves. Now, to me, at least, it
does not make much sense.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-iris@hort.net [mailto:owner-iris@hort.net] On Behalf Of
Patti Ensor
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 2:49 PM
To: iris@hort.net
Subject: [iris] message length protocols


I subscribe to the digest version of this listserve.

Are there any guidelines as to how many responses each message should
linked to it?  Sometimes one message may appear many times, even within
message, because multiple individuals hit reply and the whole discourse
resent to the list serve.  Some messages have 3 or more messages within
their one reply.

I ask, not to discourage responses, but to learn this list's protocols,
some list serves that provide digest versions have guidelines and I
know if this listserve does.



To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement