Posting style

TOFU describes a citation by written communications in electronic media. The acronym stands for text above, full quote below, or Text Over, Full Quote Under: The e-mail begins with the answer ( top posting), including in the text follows a complete copy of the quoted email including header data and signature.

In contrast, recommends a compacted Citation netiquette: only individual questions or statements are cited and with special Einrückungszeichen From previous discussion papers - in - usually preceded by a ">". On each quoted question and statement follows the associated response or the associated comment or question. This style ( inline quoting ) facilitates rapid reading of large quantities of successive messages, however, has a problem that a corrupted overall impression may arise at the receiver through targeted or accidental omission of information.

Choosing the Zitierstiles the context, the intended use, a message is important. Usenet is almost always the netiquette to use with inline quoting. In web forums, this style prevailed largely. In business e- mail correspondence TOFU is common because it allows the recipient to understand unchanged using a single e- mail the entire previous process. The first applications have more character conversation, while the latter is more like replacing a file with unmodified business documents.

Example

Dear Oscar,   that's true but even do not. Correct is 4   greeting Max   - Original Message - From: Oskar [mailto: [email protected] ] Posted: Sunday, 24 December 2006 12:00 To: Max Subject: ( no subject )   Dear Max,   one I wanted you already always say once - the I have so far only not married. It can but just give me any Rest, so it must now out: 2 2 = 5 As everyone knows.   Best Regards Oskar   - Dear Oscar,   Oskar wrote: > 2 2 = 5   that's true but even do not. Correct is 4   greeting Max Dear Oscar,   you say, 2 and 2 was 5   That's true but even do not. Correct is 4   greeting Max designation

The exact origin of the name TOFU is controversial. As earliest use in Usenet postings by Gerhard 'H' Wrodnigg are at.usenet in the newsgroups and at.sonstiges March 2000 detectable.

Criticism of TOFU

Criticism of TOFU usually comes (for example, in the Usenet or mailing lists) to the meeting of users of this Zitierstils with traditional representatives of the inline Quotings. In traditional applications of the Internet, over the years the line has Quoting enforced. It is described in detail in numerous FAQs on Netiquette. Ignorance or disregard these simple rules by newcomers encountered for example in experienced Usenet users on web forums or resistance. Conversely pushes the critique of TOFU there a lack of understanding where TOFU is the usual form of uncomplicated mail exchange between private individuals or companies.

The content of the criticism revolves around two questions, order, and extent of quote. In TOFU only the coherent answer comes ( text above), then the reader must, if it is not clearly the reference of the answer, read the full quoted original email to find out what exactly is answered. On the other hand, missing a reader with too much sometimes shortened quote for the ( complete ) understanding of information. Therefore, critics reject, the reading - need, but appreciate proponents, the reading - skills. When inline quoting quote and response are interwoven. Here is immediately comprehensible to which the statements relate new arguments. For longer inline citations, the user must scroll down under certain circumstances. In TOFU only needs to be scrolled down when the context is unclear.

More difficulty is the extent of the quotation. TOFU quotes the complete mail and inserts before each line a Einrückungszeichen or before each answer one initiation block. This increases with longer discussions in which mail messages to quote, cite the mails, which in turn quoting mails in which further mails will be quoted a confusing quotes tail on. The individual text lines are longer with each Zitiervorgang. The automatic line feed some mail programs then causes difficult readable " Kammquoting ".

To bad readability of long quotations also helps that they largely consist of header data and signatures. Problems with the scope of the quote can be easily avoided by targeted deletion of content superfluous parts of the quote - ie, waiving the unprocessed full- quote (full quote).

Similarly, in TOFU is the Understand complicated by the fact that while reading in chronological order by the end of each mail quoted at the beginning must be jumped last. If, however, responded at the end of the quotes ( TUFO, so to speak), so much could be read without such a break, but it would have to jump to the beginning of the answer to the back when you open a mail. Both are probably different subjectively annoying. In both cases, however, the entrained during the dialogue certainly has its value as a record.

Wide dissemination of TOFU in e -mail traffic

The wide distribution of TOFU in e -mail traffic is due to the rapid increase in Internet users since the mid- 90s. A large part of many new Internet users took over until then regarded as universally valid standards only partially. The prevailing e- mail programs ( Lotus Notes, Microsoft Outlook) supported partly no inline quoting. Even today TOFU is inadvertently encouraged by the popular e -mail programs either because they are set by default, and the new user does not know the netiquette, or because they put when replying to an email the cursor to the beginning. Many users therefore write anything before the full citation.

On the other hand is about the business e -mail traffic TOFU a widespread form of response. Here the isolated Quote and Comment individual sentences would be perceived as unusual or even rude, similar as would be the case in a papiernen business letter.

Compounding this situation through the consistent application of the Commercial Code, as in the business field of each email must be shareholders, tax authorities and other notes added. Common configurations use such disclaimer in part to the very end, but increasingly also like before the suspected Quote - like what seem very strange at conventional methodology, appears when this Disclaimer before or right in front of the quote and own text.

Alternatives to TOFU

• Citation in the text rather than under the text ( so no " U"). Inline quoting is standard on Usenet and message boards where threads can be reconstructed easily. The quote should thereby be reduced to the part necessary for understanding.
• Quote clean up instead of full quote ( so no " F"). Clear signatures, header data and other technical details. Repair Kammquotings.
• Language use stylistic devices, such as direct and indirect speech.
• Use of thread representation: Each correct email contains relational links, to which she refers. Often, these headers are invisible to the user, but are as the header References or ' In-Reply -To ' standardized. Powerful mail programs thus allow a tree representation in so-called threads ( threads ). Between two panelists to e- mail distribution, or mailing lists are each other readers before all previous emails. The relation to the previous message is automatically ensured by the thread representation. Full citations can therefore be omitted entirely, because every reader has also direct access to the previous mail.
• Add Cited mail as a file attachment. The text is clear, the receiver has access to the complete process.
• Mix TOFU and inline Quoting useful: Excerpts quotes, to which the following comments refer in the text; the full quote ( with date and author ) at the end. So the context of the quotes is traceable above, while ensuring the necessary quotation length is minimized in the text.
• Within closed user groups may apply: The original mail is not cut, but the answers - by abbreviation and, where technically possible, deposed by different color / font - at the places will be made to cover, insert in the mail answered. For communication with unknown third party should generally be dispensed with text formatting by color or font, since it is partly not shown partly incomplete and especially with other citation styles often is completely useless.