I respectfully disagree -- please jump to the bottom per your comment.

On 06/30/2011 10:02 AM, Alan Bartlett wrote:
> On 30 June 2011 17:43, Dan M.<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> On Thursday 30 June 2011 12:30:08 Alexander Hunt wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm not seeing any issue with threading here; all of the subject lines
>>> in Yashas emails are relevant to the topic in the body. Just for info I
>>> use Thunderbird as well, but the sl-security version.
>>>
>>> Regards to all,
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>> Here is the offending header portion:
>>
>> To: "[log in to unmask]"<[log in to unmask]>
>>   Subject: How to use a local SL 6 printer with VirtualBox MS Win XP Pro
>>   References:
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> <[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> -->  In-reply-to:<[log in to unmask]>  <---
>>
>> Sender: [log in to unmask]
>> Precedence: list
>>
>> ----
>>
>> It's just good practice to create a new email and not reply wiping the
>> information out, as it not all email clients work in the same manner.
>> Much like sending HTML messages to a listserv.
>>
>> /Dan
>
> All,
>
> Whilst nits are being picked out, will you please also desist from
> "top posting". Trim the post to which you are replying and then
> "bottom post".
>
> Alan.

Under the conditions that "snipping" allows one to still get the full 
context of an email history exchange -- often with information/comments 
interspersed within the body of various preceding email posts -- then it 
is justified.  Otherwise, I find that I cannot reconstruct the detailed 
issues.  If there is no interspersed emails, then threading will (more 
or less) allow your suggestion to work.

As for top or bottom posts, I and many others with whom I have discussed 
this point over a number of years prefer top posting so that one can 
immediately get to the new information, rather than going to the bottom 
of a perhaps otherwise unintelligible set of exchanges.  The issue is 
akin to that of reverse or forward chronology in a Curriculum Vitae.

Yasha