Re: [Evolution] Full history in reply

[Pete Biggs <pete biggs org uk>]

> I think the suggestion was that "It was an option" I would also like
> this option. From a business perspective it ensures that the entire
> conversation can be seen in a single document. Yes it costs a little
> more in storage but storage is cheap.
>
> Also other mail clients do exactly this. I suggest that you test with
> the more common email clients.

And you have almost completely missed the point of what everyone is
saying.  Evolution DOES include all the text of the email you are
responding to - that text may contain copies of the emails that other
people have responded to and they too will be included if, and this is
important, they are present in the text of the email.  This is how
every mail client behaves.

What Evolution doesn't do, nor does any other, is to include any text
that isn't part of the email you are replying to: it doesn't include
"messages" or emails or text or attachments that are not already part
of the email.

If someone edits the message they are replying to to remove irrelevant
parts, the text isn't restored by the client adding in the text from
other messages at the bottom that it miraculously finds in your Inbox. 

> The fact that you conflate this with with top posting Microsoft,
> google etc doing things is a manner which doesn't agree with your
> views isn't really relevant.

Well, it is, because the Outlook style of replying makes it look like
the included messages are included as whole discrete messages - it
doesn't encourage people to trim their replies. This style of replying
was something that Outlook did when no other email client of the time
did; Microsoft also shoe-horned "rich text" emails into the previously
purely text based systems, and in doing so they realised it meant that
the conventional and standards based method of including emails that
you are replying to (i.e. text with '> ' quote markers) didn't work so
they had to create this system of adding the whole of the message to
the bottom of the email you are composing - originally the message was
included as an attachment, so uneditable, and was just displayed at the
bottom of the text to make it look like it was inline - but it only
worked in Outlook until other MUAs were forced to try and accommodate
what Microsoft had done to a previously perfectly acceptable system.

And now it's virtually impossible to get Outlook to reply in any way
other than what it thinks you should - when you reply it will even hide
the text that it is including, so I suppose that's why people think it
magically inserts the other messages - hint: it doesn't, they were
there all along.

<<removed some irrelevant provocative rubbish>>

> Keep on track, standards (rather than convention) based and try to be
> a bit inclusive.

If only people would be standards based - there are a lot of standards
that are studiously ignored by many MUAs in favour of what their
designers prefer and have now become conventions "in the work place".

> Below is a test using a couple of common email clients" (Note the top
> the full history and top posting as it's the convention in my place
> of work ;-)

Is this your place of work??

It is the CONVENTION on this list to not top post and not to use HTML,
kindly keep to the conventions if that is what is important to you.

> ####
>
> Test 4
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 08:32, Ian wrote:
> > Test 3
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Subject: Re: Test 1
> > Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:29:50 +1000
> >
> > Test 2
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 08:28, Ian  wrote:
> > > test 1
>
>
> ####
And in what way does Evolution NOT do this?? 

Look VVV down there VVV - you can see that Evolution has done that when
you replied to Patrick's message - it included the message you were
replying to.

> Cheers
> Ian
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick O'Callaghan <poc usb ve>
> To: evolution-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: [Evolution] Full history in reply
> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:50:42 +0100
>
> On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 06:41 +0000, jiri.one via evolution-list wrote:
> Hi,