From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 05 Feb 2007 06:19:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l15EJU3c017256 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 06:19:31 -0800 Message-ID: <45C73CB9.5000402@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:18:33 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Spam on list? References: <68c491a60702050352t278e8381l72795ed9ea880029@mail.gmail.com> <200702051306.34279.ak@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <200702051306.34279.ak@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Andi Kleen Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_Schr=F6der?= , Justin Piszcz , xfs@oss.sgi.com Andi Kleen wrote: > On Monday 05 February 2007 12:52, Martin Schröder wrote: >> 05 Feb 2007 11:32:25 +0100, Andi Kleen : >>> Please don't do that. It means nothing can be cross posted >>> from l-k anymore, which would be pretty bad. >> Then set up a list admin who can approve such postings. > > That adds unacceptable latency. Also lists who spam senders > with bounce messages tend to be dropped quickly from cc lists. > > Also you couldn't list xfs@ as bug report address anymore because > bug report addresses must be available to everyone. > > In general it's a bad idea. > > -Andi > Well, I agree w/ those arguments too, Andi. I honestly don't know why oss seems to have so much more spam than, say, LKML. It is getting to a really bad level, and I sympathize with those whose inboxes are bombarded, too. -Eric