Re: [LAD] [LAU] limiting email traffic
On 10/29/2013 05:26 PM, Charles Z Henry wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Robin Gareus ro...@gareus.org wrote: The system will be activated on 31/Oct/2013 if not vetoed. The actual rate-limit may also be adjusted over time to reflect list-behaviour. yours truly, robin So, I've got just today and tomorrow to thrash the server, huh? lol. Trashing the server will not be easy, but even after today it will not be too hard to pollute the email lists if you really set your mind to it. Luckily malicious intent is much easier to handle for us. It's the gray area that causes the email-list-admins headaches. Hence this automated fair system. It basically just reminds and enforces what should be common sense anyway: If you fail to get your message across in ~10 - possibly long messages - on a public forum, better sleep over it. 2c, robin ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [LAU] limiting email traffic
On Thursday 31 October 2013 11:12:13 Robin Gareus wrote: On 10/29/2013 05:26 PM, Charles Z Henry wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Robin Gareus ro...@gareus.org wrote: The system will be activated on 31/Oct/2013 if not vetoed. The actual rate-limit may also be adjusted over time to reflect list-behaviour. yours truly, robin So, I've got just today and tomorrow to thrash the server, huh? lol. Trashing the server will not be easy, but even after today it will not be too hard to pollute the email lists if you really set your mind to it. Luckily malicious intent is much easier to handle for us. It's the gray area that causes the email-list-admins headaches. Hence this automated fair system. It basically just reminds and enforces what should be common sense anyway: If you fail to get your message across in ~10 - possibly long messages - on a public forum, better sleep over it. Have the lists history been mined to see how many valuable users violate this proposed policy one some days? Perhaps they go a week and then have 20 posts in one day and then go another week? Would it be worthwhile to run this analysis and adjust the algorithm to match what is found? 2c, robin all the best, drew ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [LAU] limiting email traffic
On 10/31/2013 04:19 PM, drew Roberts wrote: [..] Have the lists history been mined to see how many valuable users violate this proposed policy one some days? Perhaps they go a week and then have 20 posts in one day and then go another week? Mined, no. The problem here is the definition of 'valuable'. I did elaborated a bit more on this when addressing the consortium about this: I've checked some random samples and found that no reasonable[...] discussion on the LA lists in the last 2 years required more than 5 posts per user per day. Now that's still somewhat subjective. The current settings are rather conservative. With these, only four persons would have received warnings (two of them repeatedly) in the last two years, and only one would have been temporarily banned (also more than once). Anyway we intentionally chose a short ban time (6h). The idea is not to snub or censor. Just to let things calm down a bit. None of the persons who'd have triggered the warning are high-profile developers or major contributors to linux audio software architecture or ecosystem. ciao, robin ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [LAU] limiting email traffic
On Oct 31, 2013, at 11:19 22, drew Roberts wrote: Have the lists history been mined to see how many valuable users violate this proposed policy one some days? Perhaps they go a week and then have 20 posts in one day and then go another week? FWIW, this tends to be my own usage pattern -- a day or two of interacting with various fora, then back to the 'coding cave' for a week or three. On my first day 'back in public', I can easily generate a dozen messages on certain lists. Might we want to consider modifying this rule so as to apply to a dozen messages *in a given thread* per day? I agree that, if one is doing that much shouting about a single topic, it'd probably be better to give it a rest. :) Cheers! |-| | Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. | Chief Developer | | | Paravel Systems | |-| | Brian Kernighan has an automobile which he helped design. | | Unlike most automobiles, it has neither speedometer, nor gas guage, nor | | any of the numerous idiot lights which plague the modern driver.| | Rather, if the driver makes any mistake, a giant ? lights up in the | | center of the dashboard. The experienced driver, he says, will | | usually know what's wrong. | |-| ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [LAU] limiting email traffic
On 10/31/2013 05:32 PM, Fred Gleason wrote: [..] Might we want to consider modifying this rule so as to apply to a dozen messages *in a given thread* per day? I agree that, if one is doing that much shouting about a single topic, it'd probably be better to give it a rest. :) That was the initial intention. However it's much harder to do. The current implementation is a few lines of bash. it does not look at the content at all, just address and mail-headers as logged by the MTA. Basically inotifywait mail.log; cut, sort, uniq, wc, test You're welcome to provide a tool to do a better job. It's probably not too hard in perl or python, but I did not consider it worth my time. Before you get down to implement it however, consider volunteering as list-moderator. I hazard a guess that it is effectively more efficient to do things manually when it comes to more complex rules. If interested please contact linux-audio-user-ow...@lists.linuxaudio.org (which is not me). robin ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [LAU] limiting email traffic
Am 31.10.2013 17:51, schrieb Robin Gareus: On 10/31/2013 05:32 PM, Fred Gleason wrote: [..] Might we want to consider modifying this rule so as to apply to a dozen messages *in a given thread* per day? I agree that, if one is doing that much shouting about a single topic, it'd probably be better to give it a rest. :) That was the initial intention. However it's much harder to do. The current implementation is a few lines of bash. it does not look at the content at all, just address and mail-headers as logged by the MTA. Basically inotifywait mail.log; cut, sort, uniq, wc, test You're welcome to provide a tool to do a better job. It's probably not too hard in perl or python, but I did not consider it worth my time. Before you get down to implement it however, consider volunteering as list-moderator. I hazard a guess that it is effectively more efficient to do things manually when it comes to more complex rules. If interested please contact linux-audio-user-ow...@lists.linuxaudio.org (which is not me). robin ___ Often such threads change the title because they drift into more or less of-topic. I must say I like the limit given peer user and day. My mail box have a limit for 300 mails at all, from time to time it get flouted by mails from such threads, and I can't receive more mails then, before I have delete the mass from the server. That could be a pity, when I'm travel (and I travel a lot). regards hermann ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
