[Coco] One point of view

[William Astle]

As I said in my original message, I only reply in the interest of
reasoned debate. However, this is quite off topic for the list so I will
try to refrain from further on-list replies.

Wayne Campbell wrote:
> Looking at it from your perspective, I can agree that attaching the history is wasteful. However, I am looking at it from the reality of what is sent through a list like this one. Practically every message has the entire thread included in the post, whether it's all relevant to the current response or not. My thought is, which is more wasteful: 20K worth of message history in the body of the message, or 5K worth of message text and 5K worth of compressed text in a zip file that's attached?

Oh, I agree. If the history is going to be present, compressing it is a
better option than not compressing it. However, from a network traffic
perspective, no history (or very small history) is better yet.

Realistically, it probably makes very little difference for a low
traffic list like this one. In fact, in a low traffic scenario, a larger
history makes some sense in the same way I conceded that in non-archived
scenarios, it makes some sense to carry around a large history.

> I have a few questions for everyone on this list.
> How often do you *really* go to the archive to read a message thread history?
> How often do you just read the attached history instead?
> How often do you feel like you're wasting time scrolling through a long message history just to read a one line response?

Of course a person is going to look at the attached history rather than
look in an archive. But if the history is not present, the archive is an
option. And the real question is how often someone following a thread
even needs the history to formulate a reply or get the context.

Additionally, I don't for a minute believe that the general population
of email users is going to change its behaviour to match what I think is
logical or desirable. Wearing my network operator hat, I'll continue
charging users for the bandwidth they consume and get on with life, even
if that life is complicated by having to provision more bandwidth than I
strictly ought to need.

I also firmly believe that it is the list operator's domain to determine
what is acceptable on his lists. If he chooses to be permissive or
draconian about some policy or other (whether related to thread
histories or otherwise), that is his choice. Further, it is my choice to
stay on the list and accept the polices or leave the list. And I'm not
petulant enough to pack up my toys and go home just because someone
fails to trim the history from a message.

Indeed, a great many good arguments can be made on either side of the
issue, quite aside from the bandwidth concerns I raised (which are much
more of an issue for very large volume lists like the linux-kernel
list), most of which are non-technical. (If the history is not present,
it can't be accidentally leaked to someone who should see it, for
instance. On the flip side, having the history present can simplify
bringing a new person into the discussion.)

I will close off with an observation:

Message formatting in public forums (lists, etc.) is one of those
perennial religious wars that rage on the Internet. It's right up there
with the "One True Brace Style" in C or the Emacs vs. Vi editor war. It
can be fun to debate it, and it can get heated, but it's best to keep
the debates (flame wars?) in the proper forum.

Basically I'm saying that Wayne and I will obviously not agree on this
particular issue - we have different priorities. But I'm cool with that.
Wouldn't life be boring if everyone agreed on everything?

-- 
William Astle