🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <782@umix.cc.umich.edu>, paul@umix.cc.umich.edu ('da Kingfish) writes:
> In article <212@ho7cad.ATT.COM> wjc@ho5cad.ATT.COM writes:
>> Well, yes, but doesn't it make you kind of wish that they [> markers
>> on included text] [woul]d be stuck in there automatically?
> In a word, no.

So far I agree.  We would get the mail equivalent of the postings
USEnet has seen too many of consisting of

	> ENTIRE
	> ORIGINAL
	> ARTICLE

	*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

> There should be a better way of providing what is essentially a
> history of a given mail exchange without [including previous messages
> in a current one].

It's known as "editing".

> If a message writer wants to archive outgoing messages, I believe
> they can.  Of course, if there is an additional line prepended to the
> included message ("here, peabrain, I know you won't remember what you
> typed a couple days ago, so I'll include it here.") then it might be
> OK.

I send enough mail that archiving it all would be (a) a huge waste of
disk space, since most of it will never be looked at and (b) useless
because it will take me half an hour to find the antecedent to a reply
I get.  On the other hand, I send enough mail that getting a reply from
someone like

	From: someone@somewhere
	To: me@here

	Sure, go ahead.  Sounds like a good idea.

is hopeless.  I appreciate a reminder.  (But I do not appreciate an
insult ("peabrain") at the same time - and it is likely to be more like
a couple of weeks instead of a couple of days.)

However, to prevent the excessive inclusion syndrome, I think making
the sender do it by hand is a good idea.  I always do, and it isn't
enough work to bug me.

					der Mouse

				(mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp)