Re: Digest quotes

[David Kastrup]

James Harkins <address@hidden> writes:

> At Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:12:52 -0400,
> address@hidden wrote:
>> From: "Peter Gentry"
>> To: <address@hidden>
>> Subject: RE: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 118, Issue 12
>> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"
>> 
>> Hmm I had thought it was clear... >snip<
>> 
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: ...
>> >Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 5:01 PM
>> >To: address@hidden
>> >Subject: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 118, Issue 12
>
> ... 667 (!!!) lines deleted
>
>> >End of lilypond-user Digest, Vol 118, Issue 12
>> >**********************************************
>
> Hi,
>
> Just a small mention of a mailing list pet peeve: lengthy, irrelevant
> quotes. This list is usually pretty good about it, but here's one
> where an entire digest was requoted, including several messages
> completely unrelated to the topic: over 670 lines including headers.

The fun thing is that this full quote of the digest will, of course, end
up in the next digest as well.  If the probability of producing a digest
fullquote per digest is significantly larger than 0, the list will
become unreadable.

In general, it is a bad idea to answer to a digest, just because of
being able to associate answer with original article.  It is better if
you look up the article itself in the archives and answer to _that_
rather than to the digest.

-- 
David Kastrup