> I bet you've not been exposed to many corporate email chains. Top-posting makes a lot of sense there.
Yes, but only because replies don't typically intersperse quotes from the original. Once a choice is made to reply point by point, the argument for top-posting falls apart. So I imagine detailed quoting and replying, as opposed to simply replying, is rare.
Example original post:
"Here are my concerns, please provide a detailed response:"
"1. What about issue A?"
"2. Have you addressed issue B?"
"3. Item C has bothered many people in the front office."
And so forth. Replying in detail simply isn't meaningful without interspersing your replies with the original queries. And that, in turn, isn't possible if one top-posts.
To me, top-posting signals that the reply isn't (indeed, cannot be) a detailed response to the points made in the original. And maybe that doesn't matter, if people are talking past each other.
> Both styles have sense in different environments.
I think the above says it -- top-posting means you don't plan to reply in detail, point my point, as I'm doing right now.
Bottom-posting clearly signals that you read and understood every word of the original message. It is to post layout what the expression "I hear you" is to interpersonal relations.