As FumbleFingers already noted, the post scriptum should appear after the main body of the text, perhaps even after the signature. With that said, I do agree with FumbleFingers that the construct likely has no place in E-mail.

I would like to additionally point out that there is another use for P.S. besides adding a new thought to the correspondence: I have often seen P.S. used in E-mails to incite a new thread of conversation that is tangent to the main topic. While I think that might be a legitimate use in other forms of correspondence, it is generally considered bad netiquette when used in E-mail. Although the rule was not written in the original RFC, it is generally considered bad form to change the topic of an E-mail thread; topics should be changed by sending a separate E-mail, thus starting a new thread.

With that said, in rare cases I think the P.S. construct might be acceptable if used like a footnote, i.e., to provide some additional clarification on something from the main body of text that is likely unnecessary, and would otherwise hamper the flow of the main text.

As FumbleFingers already noted, the post scriptum should appear after the main body of the text, perhaps even after the signature. With that said, I do agree with FumbleFingers that the construct likely has no place in E-mail.

I would like to additionally point out that there is another use for P.S. besides adding a new thought to the correspondence: I have often seen P.S. used in E-mails to incite a new thread of conversation that is tangent to the main topic. While I think that might be a legitimate use in other forms of correspondence, it is generally considered bad netiquette when used in E-mail. Although the rule was not written in the original RFC, it is generally considered bad form to change the topic of an E-mail thread; topics should be changed by sending a separate E-mail, thus starting a new thread.

With that said, in rare cases I think the P.S. construct might be acceptable if used like a footnote, i.e., to provide some additional clarification on something from the main body of text that is likely unnecessary, and would otherwise hamper the flow of the main text.

As FumbleFingers already noted, the post scriptum should appear after the main body of the text, perhaps even after the signature. With that said, I do agree with FumbleFingers that the construct likely has no place in E-mail.

I would like to additionally point out that there is another use for P.S. besides adding a new thought to the correspondence: I have often seen P.S. used in E-mails to incite a new thread of conversation that is tangent to the main topic. While I think that might be a legitimate use in other forms of correspondence, it is generally considered bad netiquette when used in E-mail. Although the rule was not written in the original RFC, it is generally considered bad form to change the topic of an E-mail thread; topics should be changed by sending a separate E-mail, thus starting a new thread.

With that said, in rare cases I think the P.S. construct might be acceptable if used like a footnote, i.e., to provide some additional clarification on something from the main body of text that is likely unnecessary, and would otherwise hamper the flow of the main text.

As FumbleFingers already noted, the post scriptum should appear after the main body of the text, perhaps even after the signature. With that said, I do agree with FumbleFingers that the construct likely has no place in E-mail.

I would like to additionally point out that there is another use for P.S. besides adding a new thought to the correspondence: I have often seen P.S. used in E-mails to incite a new thread of conversation that is tangent to the main topic. While I think that might be a legitimate use in other forms of correspondence, it is generally considered bad netiquette when used in E-mail. Although the rule was not written in the original RFC, it is generally considered bad form to change the topic of an E-mail thread; topics should be changed by sending a separate E-mail, thus starting a new thread.

With that said, in rare cases I think the P.S. construct might be acceptable if used like a footnote, i.e., to provide some additional clarification on something from the main body of text that is likely unnecessary, and would otherwise hamper the flow of the main text.