Re: linux-arm-kernel useless for development (was Re: Your message to Linux-arm-kernel awaits moderator approval)

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

> > > (c) you really don't understand that "held for moderation" is *not*
> > > rejection, but merely a case of mailman spotting something it
> > > doesn't like and letting a *human* deal with it rather than
> > > out-right rejecting it.
> > 
> > For lakml, held for moderation _does_ mean it will return with
> > "posting rejected: no reason given" in few days. I have never seen any
> > other result, and have got perfectly reasonable messages rejected with
> > "no reason". So no, I do not believe there's cooperative human being
> > moderating lakml.
> 
> That's not true. For every message I reject I always explain the
> reason. Most of the time it is "Please subcribe before you're allowed to
> post".

So... is subscribing required for posting or not? You and Russell seem
to be confused on that. If not, when it stopped being required?
Because Russell seems to imply that that requirement was dropped some
time ago.

> > > I wonder, do you even know what happened to the message you're
> > > whinging about?  Would you prefer that your message was silently
> > > dropped into /dev/null instead of having a chance of the issue
> > > being resolved?  It strikes me that _that_ would be a better
> > > solution than all your whinging.
> > 
> > So... your solution to broken mailing list is to silence everyone who
> > complains?
> 
> No, if you asked us in private, it would already be solved. I just
> increased the max_num_recipients from the default 15 to 30. That should
> solve your problem.

Thanks.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html