29 Oct
2013
29 Oct
'13
4:01 p.m.
Hi all,
Due to excessive posts - in particular on the linux-audio-user email
list, we are going to rate-limit the number of emails to
13 emails per user per 24 hours
with direct follows-up replies to self counting twice.
It is not unreasonable to assume that a single user posting more than
12 emails per day is either involved in a heated flame-war or otherwise
disrupting reasonable discussion. Neither of which is acceptable on the
LA email lists.
We understand that some communication requires rapid exchange of many
small snippets and recommend users who need to regularly post short
messages many times per day to rather use services such as twitter, IRC
or simply private email. The LA email lists are mainly intended for
discussion, questions & answers, sharing and preservation of knowledge.
Note that there are currently over 3000 persons subscribing to the LA
lists, every single email sent to the list will result in 3000+ forwards
and be archived in various places on the web.
Offenders will be notified with a warning message with the 10th email
within a day and after the 13th email temporarily banned for 6 hours
from further posting to the given email list.
Feel free to comment on this email here on this list, but official
inquires should be addressed to members of the consortium. See
http://linuxaudio.org/contact
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
29 Oct
29 Oct
5:26 p.m.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Robin Gareus <robin(a)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?
31 Oct
31 Oct
4:12 p.m.
New subject: [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
<robin(a)gareus.org> wrote:
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
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?
4:17 p.m.
New subject: [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:
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?
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Robin Gareus
<robin(a)gareus.org> wrote:
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. 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?
2c,
robin
all the best,
drew
5:25 p.m.
New subject: [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
5:32 p.m.
New subject: [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." |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
5:38 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] limiting email traffic
On Thursday 31 October 2013 12:25:30 Robin Gareus wrote:
On 10/31/2013 04:19 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
[..]
Of course... ~;-)
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.
I don't think of myself as an abuser but I get a vague feeling that there may
have been a day here and there where I would have run up against these
limits.
If I get the energy and some spare time, I may try and run a little script
against a list history and see what I can discover.
It does not worry me too much if I bump into the limit occasionally as I don't
think what I contribute iss all that urgent ever but I would hate to see some
people I look forward to reading bump into it.
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
all the best,
drew
5:51 p.m.
New subject: [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-owner(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
(which is not me).
robin
6:28 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] limiting email traffic
Am 31.10.2013 17:51, schrieb Robin Gareus:
On 10/31/2013 05:32 PM, Fred Gleason wrote:
[..]
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
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-owner(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
(which is not me).
robin
_______________________________________________ 
7:07 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] limiting email traffic
How about a per-thread limit regardless of author, since threads such
as this one right here tend to disrupt established conversations, bore
serious users -- and also elicit comments of dubious value from
bike-shedders, trolls and lurkers.
On 10/31/13, hermann meyer <brummer-(a)web.de> wrote:
Am 31.10.2013 17:51, schrieb Robin Gareus:
On 10/31/2013 05:32 PM, Fred Gleason wrote:
[..]
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(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
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-owner(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
(which is not me).
robin
_______________________________________________
3839
days inactive
3841
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
9 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Charles Z Henry -
Dan Muresan -
drew Roberts -
Fred Gleason -
hermann meyer -
Robin Gareus -
Robin Gareus