Writing email replies UNDER the original message

  • Thread starter Thread starter MauriceF
  • Start date Start date
M

MauriceF

I believe a reply/response should default to AFTER a question/original
message. Logical?
I cannot see how to do this in Vista using Office 2007.
 
it's not an option in outlook, but you can move the insertion point to the
end of the message.

FWIW, I find it easier to read messages when the reply is on top - no need
for me to search for the newest reply, its right on top where I can see it.
It also works better on phones - especially since only the first few bytes
are sent to the phone until I request the full message.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]

Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com/

Outlook Tips by email:
mailto:[email protected]

EMO - a weekly newsletter about Outlook and Exchange:
mailto:[email protected]

Poll: What version of Outlook do you use?
http://forums.slipstick.com/showthread.php?t=27072
 
it's not an option in outlook, but you can move the insertion point
to the end of the message.

FWIW, I find it easier to read messages when the reply is on top - no
need for me to search for the newest reply, its right on top where I
can see it. It also works better on phones - especially since only
the first few bytes are sent to the phone until I request the full
message.
Click to expand...

A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

TOPIC: Posting Etiquette

Seriously, if an individual does not know how to properly trim a post
when replying then perhaps they should find some other activity to keep
themselves occupied.

--

Carmel
(e-mail address removed)

|::::=======
|::::=======
|===========
|===========
|

Scott's first Law: No matter what goes wrong, it will probably look right.
 
You simply reply to a question. It is customary to include quoted
original for reference purposes. References are placed after the authors
text.
 
That "etiquette" was useful when we had 1200 baud modems and you
downloaded the last message first. Now that we have the entire thread
available that bottom posting "process" merely forces the rereading of
the original question over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and..............
 
That "etiquette" was useful when we had 1200 baud modems and you
downloaded the last message first. Now that we have the entire thread
available that bottom posting "process" merely forces the rereading
of the original question over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and..............
Click to expand...

The fallacy is assuming that a reader has actually read all of the
previous posts in the thread. Further, why would any sane person
re-read a thread when all they have to do is read the unquoted portion
of the post?

Of course, I will agree that if the responding party lacks the ability
to properly prune a responded to document they will not have to
where-with-all to properly reply to one. The end product is a
skimble-skamble item of rambling paragraphs in reverse order.

--
Carmel

|::::=======
|::::=======
|===========
|===========
|

The study of non-linear physics is like the study of non-elephant
biology.
 
It has nothing to do with rereading the thread - few people do. It's about
having a running thread if you need to refer to something in the post. Here
in the newsgroups we need the full thread so we can follow the topic - old
posts are only kept a few weeks. In email its not so important, but its
better than looking for the older messages to see what was said.

Most people do not trim and the few who do, often do a terrible job at it.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]

Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com/

Outlook Tips by email:
mailto:[email protected]

EMO - a weekly newsletter about Outlook and Exchange:
mailto:[email protected]

Poll: What version of Outlook do you use?
http://forums.slipstick.com/showthread.php?t=27072
 
Back
Top