It seems to me that a lot of what causes working group lists to
melt down is simply the volume of traffic -- usually with plenty
of off-topic banter, or exchanges of dubious value, with the resulting
conjestive collapse of our wetware buffering. On good days, the
drop algorithm may be more sophist
sers. How difficult this
would be to implement on the message exploders is another question.
Steve Silverman
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Michael Thomas
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:26 PM
> To: IETF Discussio
draconian rules like this.
Steve Silverman
Andy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Michael Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:26 PM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal
It seems to m
On 01/25/2006 16:12, Steve Silverman wrote:
> It seems to me that limiting users to 3 messages / day (perhaps with a
> maximum number of bytes) would be a
> minimal impact on free speech but would limit the damage done by
> overly productive transmitters. This could be limited to users who
> are n
We had a discussion on this back in May 2003, and I created a mailing list
for it called "ietf-moderation" - you can subscribe to the list by
http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-moderation, or the usual
-request spiel.
Total traffic seems to have been 3 messages in May and 9 mes
On Jan 25, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
We had a discussion on this back in May 2003, and I created a
mailing list for it called "ietf-moderation" - you can subscribe to
the list by http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-
moderation, or the usual -request spi
Michael Thomas writes:
> Perhaps we should take a lesson from TCP and set a receive window
> on IETF mailing lists in the face of conjestion. The sender is thus
> obligated to keep the transmission within the window, and as a side
> effect to consider the quality of the, um, quantity. Just this si
Steve Silverman writes:
> It seems to me that limiting users to 3 messages / day (perhaps with
> a maximum number of bytes) would be a minimal impact on free speech
> but would limit the damage done by overly productive transmitters.
> This could be limited to users who are nominated to a "limit"
Andy Bierman writes:
> I do not share your regulatory zeal.
> As a WG Chair and WG participant, I have enough rules to follow already.
> The last thing I want to do is count messages and bytes, and enforce
> draconian rules like this.
But counting messages and bytes happens to be something that c
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Andy Bierman writes:
I do not share your regulatory zeal.
As a WG Chair and WG participant, I have enough rules to follow already.
The last thing I want to do is count messages and bytes, and enforce
draconian rules like this.
But counting messages and byt
Douglas Otis wrote:
> I suspect that at the moment, I am the guilty party in consuming
> bandwidth on the DKIM list. With the aggressive schedule, the
> immediate desire was to get issues listed, corrected, and in a form
> found acceptable.
Without going into all the reasons why here, I asked Do
Eliot Lear wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
I suspect that at the moment, I am the guilty party in consuming
bandwidth on the DKIM list. With the aggressive schedule, the
immediate desire was to get issues listed, corrected, and in a form
found acceptable.
Without going into all the reasons why
Andy Bierman writes:
> I think you missed my point.
> I should have said "enforce or abide by draconian rules".
> Automating the process is even worse.
> Then stupid scripts disrupt WG activity on a regular basis.
> Inappropriate mailing list use should be dealt with by the
> WG Chair(s) in a more
Brian E Carpenter writes:
> Exactly. If a WG group is discussing a dozen separate issues in parallel,
> an active participant can easily send several dozen *constructive*
> messages in a day. Our problem with disruptive messages can't be solved
> by counting bytes.
Set a rolling monthly quota, th
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Andy Bierman writes:
I think you missed my point.
I should have said "enforce or abide by draconian rules".
Automating the process is even worse.
Then stupid scripts disrupt WG activity on a regular basis.
Inappropriate mailing list use should be dealt with by th
>Set a rolling monthly quota, then. Nobody constantly sends a long
>stream of consistently productive messages.
We've certainly been made aware of that.
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Nobody constantly sends a long stream of consistently productive
> messages.
The irony in you, of all people, making this statement is a little stunning -
to the point that one really does start to wonder exactly what could be
behin
Anthony,
...
-->
--> Set a rolling monthly quota, then. Nobody constantly sends a long
--> stream of consistently productive messages.
-->
-->
This is simply not true. All one needs to do is publish a
crucial document relevant to the working groups charter,
and important to understanding th
Andy Bierman writes:
> If we did this, our mailing lists would be bombarded with SPAM
> from non-subscribers.
Then accept e-mail only from subscribers.
> There is an appeals process (of that we are too painfully aware)
> that can be used for people who are told by a WG Chair that
> they are usin
Noel Chiappa writes:
> In that case, there's no harm in the rest of us deciding we don't need the
> dubious "assistance" of few of the most troublesome, and least productive, is
> there?
Actually there is, because there's very little correlation between
being "troublesome" on a mailing list and b
Gray, Eric writes:
> This is simply not true. All one needs to do is publish a
> crucial document relevant to the working groups charter,
> and important to understanding the rest of the work, and
> one will be inundated with questions.
Then maybe message traffic is not a reliable indicator of
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 05:16:59PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter writes:
>
> > Exactly. If a WG group is discussing a dozen separate issues in parallel,
> > an active participant can easily send several dozen *constructive*
> > messages in a day. Our problem with disruptiv
Theodore Ts'o writes:
> As a gentle suggestion from one of the Sargeant-At-Arms. If
> you were to keep track of how many messages you have been posting
> compared to others, I think you would find that you are one of the
> more prolific posters on this thread.
And if you were to look at the tota
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Eliot Lear wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
I suspect that at the moment, I am the guilty party in consuming
bandwidth on the DKIM list. With the aggressive schedule, the
immediate desire was to get issues listed, corrected, and in a form
found acceptable.
Without go
Just for the participants who are enjoying the current discussion on this
list (for some value of "enjoying") -
One of the things that I find most helpful is when people who could be
replying posting-by-posting within a thread stop, take a deep breath, and
ask themselves, "rather than making m
[aggregated message, the from's are in the cc, Rob see first reply]
Top-PS: Did folks see and read the following:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-00.txt
Michael Thomas wrote:
[..]
> Perhaps we should take a lesson from TCP and set a receive window
> on IE
Jeroen Massar writes:
> Limiting to less than 3 per day would be the same as suspending for X
> hours.
They would both be the same only if they were carried out in the same
way.
If either method is applied to specific users, it's still just
arbitrary censorship. If it is applied equally to ever
27 matches
Mail list logo
