It seems to me that most participants in this discussion are making unjustified assumptions about how other people reply to emails. Some people routinely top post, leaving sometimes too much (as

Mark, That's very interesting, because it's nearly exactly what I was requesting - namely, collapse only if sig is included (to avoid the confusion I experienced in reading these kinds of

Changes to the site this week: CHANGE: For premium/enterprise groups, only automatically add an event to the calendar that was emailed to the group if the message is not a reply. BUGFIX: When viewing

Hi All, I just did some tests using Gmail. Interestingly, it behaves differently if the message you are replying to contains a signature or not. If it does not, and you bottom reply, it does not

Gerald, Ok, good! In that particular one, the signature line was included. And I think what made that particular message particularly confusing is that you were quoting an entire message of mine,

Unless I forget, I always delete any signature lines. I either select a specific section of text I want to include before clicking on "Reply" or I just "Reply" and click the "copy all" lasso and

Duane, Yes, I know. Nothing has changed in that regard since Mark's most recent change. I think you were referring to a suggested change that has not been implemented. -- J Messages are the sole

Glenn, No, it succeeded with flying colors! I did not quote your sig and there was no reason for me to do so. I quoted a line from your message, as I am doing herewith, and it did not collapse (as it

Your attempted subversion failed. I do not see my own sig line in the message. In general, I believe it is up to the writer, not the reader to determine what their message content is.

Duane, I agree! Hiding the quote makes total sense for quotes below a reply, because those quotes are accidental, not meant to be read, and a PITA as they accumulate. Intentional quotes at the top of

Still gets collapsed... Duane

I've just been going through some messages on one of my groups and this change has made a big mess of things. We finally got people to include only the relevant part of the previous message and now

Glenn, I think any prior signature should not be included in a quote one is responding to. Doing so creates the essence of the problem I've been experiencing with these messages. If you want to make

Oh, forgot to mention this: the sig is worse than not relevant: i's a barrier to clear communication. When you see the sig at the bottom, your brain parses it as "end of message." That's the main

Exactly. ^^^ In fact, I started using what you call a "greeting" (and I've called an addressee) to subvert the collapsing. Didn't bother doing it this time. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of

That's like saying that the frame isn't a relevant part of a portrait. You are critiquing something using a criteria which is not based on its purpose. Best, Glenn

It hasn't caused any readability problems for me. Duane

J, [me: looks at the topic on web again] Ah, or perhaps because it is no longer at the "top" -- my and your greetings are. I generally agree, especially the bit about quoting the whole prior message

Shal, No, I've figured out that the distinction is that you add an addressee at the top, which violates the "one and only one" condition on the collapsing. All I can tell you is that message(s) look

J, I think the key distinction is that I routinely trim away the "On [date] [someone] wrote:" line that introduces a conventional full message quote. Some people trim the body of the quote to the