Trimming posts (was RE: [plug] New version of Winux)

[Matt Kemner]

On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Bret Busby wrote:
 
> See tail end. This is not a trick; merely to put it in context.

So only include those lines that are directly relevant to your posts.
The most you needed to include from the messages you replied to were:
(and I'm being more liberal here than I normally am)

> Tamara Thompson wrote:

> > > Bret, those links with numbers and comma's in them never work for
> > > me. ?
> > > 'Sorry page doesn't exist'.

> Alex Polglaze wrote:

> I have exactly the same problem.

And from the CNET message you included you could have snipped all but:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CNET NEWS.COM Dispatch [mailto:NEWS-DISPATCH at DISPATCH.CNET.COM] On
> Behalf Of CNET News Dispatcher
> Sent: 14 April 1999 03:21
> To: NEWS-DISPATCH at DISPATCH.CNET.COM
> Subject: Privacy concerns abound/Low-cost wars subside?/RealNetworks
> resilient
[SNIP]
> Enterprise Computing: Caldera eases Linux onto the desktop
> 
> The company preps a new consumer-friendly desktop version of
> OpenLinux that lets people run the upstart operating system
> without ever seeing a confusing interface. (Apr 12, 5:50 p.m. PT)
> http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C35007%2C00.html?dd.ne.txt.0413.10

The rest was just a waste of bandwidth.  Remember that when you send to a
mailing list, the bandwidth consumed by your message is multiplied by the
number of subscribers on the list.
It's also a lot easier to read "in context" when you only quote the
comments you're replying to.

Don't take this personally, I'm just trying to explain why we "'net
old-timers" get so frustrated when people reply to a message, and include
much more than is needed to get the point across.

 - Matt