Raising list size limit

Raising list size limit

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 470 bytes --]

Hi,

I am considering raising the limit on the size of postings to 400k.  Does
anyone have a real problem with this?  Limiting message size was done to
limit the damage of larges spams (and we don;t get very many of those on
the list) and to ease the pain for people downloading emails over a slow
(like dialup) link (and are there many of those left?).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Raising list size limit

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:36:27 +1100
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I am considering raising the limit on the size of postings to 400k.  Does
> anyone have a real problem with this?  Limiting message size was done to
> limit the damage of larges spams (and we don;t get very many of those on
> the list) and to ease the pain for people downloading emails over a slow
> (like dialup) link (and are there many of those left?).

Fine by me!

josh

Re: Raising list size limit

[Kumar Gala]

On Dec 18, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:36:27 +1100
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am considering raising the limit on the size of postings to  
>> 400k.  Does
>> anyone have a real problem with this?  Limiting message size was  
>> done to
>> limit the damage of larges spams (and we don;t get very many of  
>> those on
>> the list) and to ease the pain for people downloading emails over a  
>> slow
>> (like dialup) link (and are there many of those left?).
>
> Fine by me!

Do you really have patches that are 400k?

- k

Re: Raising list size limit

[Olof Johansson]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 09:54:15AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> 
> On Dec 18, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:36:27 +1100
> > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am considering raising the limit on the size of postings to  
> >> 400k.  Does
> >> anyone have a real problem with this?  Limiting message size was  
> >> done to
> >> limit the damage of larges spams (and we don;t get very many of  
> >> those on
> >> the list) and to ease the pain for people downloading emails over a  
> >> slow
> >> (like dialup) link (and are there many of those left?).
> >
> > Fine by me!
> 
> Do you really have patches that are 400k?

I'm guessing stuff such as "dtc merge" could reach those sizes?

Since it's somewhat common to cross-post patches (especially some of the
@de.ibm.com guys seem to post to 2-5 lists at a time), having a limit
higher than other lists could mean we see the same (large) patches several
times in case they bounce from other lists and get reposted. But it should
be a small fraction of the traffic no matter what.


-Olof

Re: Raising list size limit

[David Gibson]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 10:12:08AM -0600, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 09:54:15AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > 
> > On Dec 18, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:36:27 +1100
> > > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I am considering raising the limit on the size of postings to  
> > >> 400k.  Does
> > >> anyone have a real problem with this?  Limiting message size was  
> > >> done to
> > >> limit the damage of larges spams (and we don;t get very many of  
> > >> those on
> > >> the list) and to ease the pain for people downloading emails over a  
> > >> slow
> > >> (like dialup) link (and are there many of those left?).
> > >
> > > Fine by me!
> > 
> > Do you really have patches that are 400k?
> 
> I'm guessing stuff such as "dtc merge" could reach those sizes?

dtc merge was 224k, if it had stayed together with the libfdt merge it
would have been a about 300k.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

Re: Raising list size limit

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:54:15 -0600
Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:

> 
> On Dec 18, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:36:27 +1100
> > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am considering raising the limit on the size of postings to  
> >> 400k.  Does
> >> anyone have a real problem with this?  Limiting message size was  
> >> done to
> >> limit the damage of larges spams (and we don;t get very many of  
> >> those on
> >> the list) and to ease the pain for people downloading emails over a  
> >> slow
> >> (like dialup) link (and are there many of those left?).
> >
> > Fine by me!
> 
> Do you really have patches that are 400k?

Nope.  But I don't really care if I get them.

josh

Re: Raising list size limit

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 603 bytes --]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:36:27 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> I am considering raising the limit on the size of postings to 400k.  Does
> anyone have a real problem with this?  Limiting message size was done to
> limit the damage of larges spams (and we don;t get very many of those on
> the list) and to ease the pain for people downloading emails over a slow
> (like dialup) link (and are there many of those left?).

OK, this is done now.  Do your worst :-)

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]