[HN Gopher] The three modern formats for email forwarded by people
___________________________________________________________________
The three modern formats for email forwarded by people
Author : zdw
Score : 24 points
Date : 2023-10-08 17:04 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (utcc.utoronto.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (utcc.utoronto.ca)
| jameshart wrote:
| Somehow not surprised to see that this links to a post by the
| same author shaking his fist at top-posting[1].
|
| Is the topic still contested? In business email, top posting
| seems to have completely won. Are there any pre-eternal-September
| warriors still sticking Emily-Post-like to their 1992-era
| netiquette standards in the face of modernity?
|
| [1]
| https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/tech/TopPostingReal...
| inopinatus wrote:
| On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 07:55 +1100 jameshart wrote: > Are
| there any pre-eternal-September warriors still sticking
| > Emily-Post-like to their 1992-era netiquette standards
| Yes. --- inopinatus
| twiss wrote:
| On some IETF mailing lists (and similar communities, like
| LKML), bottom-posting and plain text messages are still the
| norm.
|
| But, this requires more careful editing of the email (e.g. to
| trim irrelevant quoted text), in order to remain easy to read.
| So as a default for lazy^H^H^H^H^H people in a hurry, top-
| posting makes sense, IMO.
| singpolyma3 wrote:
| Why top posting vs just not having the redundant quoted
| content at all?
| TylerE wrote:
| At least with mailing lists and Usenet they weren't always
| redundant. Federation wasn't perfect.
| ninjin wrote:
| As a sample, in my computer science department there is only
| myself and a single other academic that still fight the good
| fight. The rest seem to have never learned or given up as
| "modern" e-mail tools certainly favour top posting. I am known
| for taking stupid fights and being too stubborn for my own
| good, so I do not see myself caving in any time soon.
|
| What I wish for is a script to "correct" the order of e-mails
| botched by top posters. Having that would save me some time
| whenever I feel the need to manually unwrap a conversation. But
| I have never managed to find one (lacking in web search
| skills?), so perhaps I should attempt to write one some day?
| ryukafalz wrote:
| Inline and bottom posting is still very common on software dev
| mailing lists. It's just that those aren't quite as common
| themselves these days. :)
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > Are there any pre-eternal-September warriors still sticking
| Emily-Post-like to their 1992-era netiquette standards in the
| face of modernity?
|
| Have you ever heard of that site called HN?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| HN shows the other message, so the standards have an entirely
| different foundation.
| gumby wrote:
| > Are there any pre-eternal-September warriors still sticking
| Emily-Post-like to their 1992-era netiquette standards in the
| face of modernity?
|
| Plenty of people continue to comment inline. I wouldn't have
| quoted your comment except it's a humorous way to make this
| point :-)
|
| It may be the kinds of people I hang out with, but I have
| observed:
|
| 1. Business people top post; they seem to want the top post
| reply to be short enough to read on the phone without scrolling
| and want the subject line to provide enough context so AFICT
| they never look the the quoted message.
|
| 2. Mailing lists I'm on have a mix of top post replies and
| inline replies; I've learned that the top-post responders can
| by and large be ignored.
|
| 3. People born after around 1998 tend not to reply to mail at
| all. I forced my born-in-98 kid to learn to write a good email
| (and boy was it a struggle) but when he was looking for a job
| he told me it was a superpower because the folks he was
| competing with couldn't/wouldn't do it.
| twiss wrote:
| > The 'rendered text' and the whole message may be HTML, but I
| don't think very many mail clients will carefully construct a
| version that still has the images attached and so on [when
| forwarding it].
|
| I'm surprised the author thinks this. I believe most popular
| email clients (Outlook, Thunderbird, and all web mail clients I
| know) do this, and it's what users expect when they forward an
| HTML email, I'd think.
| ghostly_s wrote:
| Indeed. Fairly certain Mail.app does this as well, and is
| probably(?) the most popular mail client today. Author loses
| all credibility within the first 3 paragraphs imo.
| subarctic wrote:
| How do you open a .eml file? I downloaded a bunch of emails as .
| eml files recently when I was organizing my expenses, and
| couldn't find a good way to open them on my computer to look at
| them.
| soupfordummies wrote:
| Outlook would probably be my first guess, but I also don't see
| many folks having the full Outlook client these days unless
| it's a work computer and your company uses Microsoft.
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| For the businesspeople in my office, the answer is to just
| leave them in your mailbox until the retention policy gets
| them, or print them to PDF. I don't think anyone works with
| .eml directly.
| mgiampapa wrote:
| In the early days of my IT career I had an executive who had
| his secretary print all of his emails on paper and put them
| in an IN box on his desk... Never had an IT complaint from
| him either. FYI, this was in the mid 2000s, how the meteor
| missed him, I have no idea.
| tuukkah wrote:
| Use the ImportExportTools extension in Thunderbird:
| https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/addon/impor...
| gumby wrote:
| for a brief period I had to correspond with a lawyer whose mail
| program generated them; I discovered that you could simply
| double click them in Apple Mail and they would open.
|
| Given that APple preferes to rewrite rather than bug-
| fix/upgrade I have no idea if that's still true; haven't seen
| one in many years.
| jslabovitz wrote:
| If you drag a message out from Apple Mail, say to the
| desktop, it will save that message as a .eml file. And if you
| inspect it, it's simply the raw message itself -- as it would
| be in, say, a Maildir folder. You can literally 'cat' the
| file. Unless there are multiple versions of '.eml' that have
| different formats...
| Karellen wrote:
| I'd give ytnef and libpst a try. They both come with a command
| line tool suite for working with Outlook files.
|
| https://github.com/Yeraze/ytnef
|
| https://www.five-ten-sg.com/libpst/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-09 23:01 UTC)