On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 01:47:19AM -0400, Smitty wrote:
> Paul M Foster wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 01:11:13AM -0400, Smitty wrote:
> >
> > > Steve wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday 30 May 2001 20:46, you wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 11:13:50AM -0700, ter swartz wrote:
> > > > > > The company that I am working for is looking to switch
> > > > > > to another web hosting company (from Net Solution and
> > > > > > Mindspring), due to unreliablity and poor tech
> > > > > > support. I have been looking at xo.com and ait.com.
> > > > > > Does anybody have some feedback about either or
> > > > > > another suggestion? Just need basic domain
> > > > > > resolution, with some limited video streaming, pop3
> > > > > > accounts and 30-50megs of anonymous FTP (did I spell
> > > > > > that right?) & to work!
> > > > > > Pete
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't know about anonymous FTP, but we've had our corporate website
> > > > > hosted by XO for four years. Never a service problem. You can check with
> > > > > them on what services they currently offer in what packages. Pricing has
> > > > > been reasonable as well. We pay $39.95 per month for hosting our
> > > > > domain/website, dial-up (backup to DSL), and the standard email
> > > > > accounts, disk space, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul
> > >
> > > And they use Solaris 8 on Ultra-Sparc servers. They have a booth at the
> > > CTS.
> > > Smitty
> > >
> > > >
> > > > We used to use them too, but as I was having problems getting them to support
> > > > secure mail pickup I changed to Intnet.net. They have OC-12 (625MB/sec) and
> > > > has a MUCH faster web service than XO.
> > > >
> > > > Comes with user friendly web interface too. Actually it's much more
> > > > responsive than XO's.
> > > >
> > > > Similar pricing...
> > > >
> > > > Steve Szmidt
> > > > ____________
> > > > Do you ferret?
> >
> > >From the positioning of Smitty's comments (after the comments about XO
> > and before the reply about Intnet) it appears he's commenting on XO. But
> > XO does not have a booth at CTS. Intnet does. Thus, it appears he is
> > instead commenting on Intnet. Snippage would have helped here.
> >
> > Paul
> Perhaps to you, Paul but not to me. Please follow the sequence and you
> will see that it was a reply to Steve's statement. Also, Paul, you can
> always comment instructively off-list if you have a suggestion for me.
> There is no list policy about the format of replies. Do we need one?
> Smitty
>From the (non-snipped) attributions above, the sequence is as follows:
ter swartz asks for opinions on XO or ait. My comments follow
regarding XO. Then Smitty's remarks. Then Steve's remarks regarding XO
versus Intnet. Followed in this manner, Smitty's remarks appear to apply
to the preceding text, which are my comments regarding XO. This is not
actually the case, in _time_ sequence, as Smitty's remarks came last.
However, where they were positioned tended to indicate they were a reply
to my comments.
Following _time_ sequence is difficult with email for two reasons.
First, not everyone's email client includes date and time with
attributions. Second, the attributions are often far away visually from
the text they apply to. Thus, the simpler way to follow sequence is
_visually_-- this follows that follows that.
This is a matter of personal opinion, as there are no rules. But I'm
inclined to think that most people read mail in visual sequence, rather
than trying to piece together sequence from the timestamps in
attributions.
The more important point here was not aimed particularly at Smitty.
"Snippage" is the practice of excising parts of an email not really
pertinent to the present reply. Generally, "snipped" passages are marked
by
<snip>
to show something has been removed. This is generally done for two
reasons. First, it makes understanding the present comments easier by
eliminating irrelevancies. Second, and just as important, it cuts
bandwidth. One of the main reasons that HTML is forbidden by many lists
is because it can generate three times the bandwidth for a given volume
of original text. Snipping effectively eliminates a lot of bandwidth
that isn't needed to understand the current message.
And there is way too little snippage on this list.
As I said, the message in question could have had improved clarity by
creative snippage.
In any case, when posting, please consider what could effectively be
snipped without losing meaning. Not doing so only serves to muddle your
message and irritate others who wish to get to the meat of the matter
without having to wade through reams of text.
No, there are no list policies about it, other than plain netiquette.
It's a request, okay?
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:28:04 EDT