Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com): > That said, I remain concerned about our antique mailing list procedures that > impose tricky processing exceptions merely to defeat spam.
With great respect: It's not that. The GNU Mailman default setting of 10 maximum To: and Cc: recipients for a posting to propagate through without being queued for manual approval is, in my experience, about right, even though the de-facto limit with that default setting appears to be 1 or 2 fewer (probably a fencepost error in the code). Mail with a higher number of To: and Cc: recipients has a very high correlation with spamicity and with posting misbehaviour such as attempts to foment cross-mailing-list flamewars. The listadmins could, if they wish, (say) double that default number, raising the limit to 20. I'm betting that a significantly higher amount of problematic traffic would get through over time (albeit I could be wrong). But, additionally, as a reminder, what Simon actually suggested was that people avoid _cross-posting_. I concur that this is a good suggestion for numerous reasons, including it making a lot more work for the listadmins of each included forum (given limited overlap of the subscriber bases). A better practice, if you wish to have a similar discussion on multiple mailing lists, is to post to each one separately. Yes, that's not the least-effort course of action. You'll probably have noticed that The Right Thing seldom is. ;-> > I am frustrated that my "reply-all" can cause a multi-day delay in the > dissemination of my "deep wisdom" or delay the "deep wisdom" of my > colleagues here. IIRC, the problem wasn't reply-all as such (which is A Good Thing), but rather inclusion of a rather large number of To: and Cc: recipients in part because of cross-posting across multiple mailing lists. Which gets us back to Simon's point. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss