[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

[Wolfgang Denk]

Hi,

there is an increasing number of postings  with  loooooong  lists  of
recipients  (10  addresses  and  more);  usually several of these are
regular and active users of this mailing list  so  this  is  actually
redundant;  for  the  remaining addresses question is if these people
really need to  be  informed,  and  if  so,  if  they  should  rather
subscribe  to the list (or if a company-internal mailing list address
should be used instead).

So far, I have manually ACKed all postings  that  were  helt  by  the
mailing  list software because of too many recipients. From now on, I
will not do this any more, but rather reject those messages.

Please restrict yourself - 10 or more explicit  reciepients  are  not
really needed.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"Success covers a multitude of blunders."       - George Bernard Shaw

[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

[Scott Wood]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> there is an increasing number of postings  with  loooooong  lists  of
> recipients  (10  addresses  and  more);  usually several of these are
> regular and active users of this mailing list  so  this  is  actually
> redundant;  

It is not redundant -- including a person in the CC list brings the mail 
to their attention faster (and with less chances of missing it) than if 
they have to pick it out of the list.

Though it seems that sometimes I don't get a copy delivered directly to 
me, but only the list e-mail -- even though I'm in the CC.  I think this 
happens when the mail is sent from someone @denx.de, so the server 
discards the duplicate, defeating the whole point of CCing a particular 
person.

> for  the  remaining addresses question is if these people
> really need to  be  informed,  and  if  so,  if  they  should  rather
> subscribe  to the list (or if a company-internal mailing list address
> should be used instead).
> 
> So far, I have manually ACKed all postings  that  were  helt  by  the
> mailing  list software because of too many recipients. From now on, I
> will not do this any more, but rather reject those messages.

How about reconfiguring the list software instead?

-Scott

[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

[Jerry Van Baren]

Scott Wood wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> there is an increasing number of postings  with  loooooong  lists  of
>> recipients  (10  addresses  and  more);  usually several of these are
>> regular and active users of this mailing list  so  this  is  actually
>> redundant;  
> 
> It is not redundant -- including a person in the CC list brings the mail 
> to their attention faster (and with less chances of missing it) than if 
> they have to pick it out of the list.
> 
> Though it seems that sometimes I don't get a copy delivered directly to 
> me, but only the list e-mail -- even though I'm in the CC.  I think this 
> happens when the mail is sent from someone @denx.de, so the server 
> discards the duplicate, defeating the whole point of CCing a particular 
> person.

That is actually a MailMan feature.  If you go to your personal 
configuration page, you will find the last option to be...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avoid duplicate copies of messages?

When you are listed explicitly in the To: or Cc: headers of a list 
message, you can opt to not receive another copy from the mailing list. 
Select Yes to avoid receiving copies from the mailing list; select No to 
receive copies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[snip]

gvb

[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

[Scott Wood]

Jerry Van Baren wrote:
> That is actually a MailMan feature.  If you go to your personal 
> configuration page, you will find the last option to be...
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avoid duplicate copies of messages?
> 
> When you are listed explicitly in the To: or Cc: headers of a list 
> message, you can opt to not receive another copy from the mailing list. 
> Select Yes to avoid receiving copies from the mailing list; select No to 
> receive copies.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

I already have that set to "no".  It's not the list e-mail that isn't 
making it, but the direct CC e-mail.  It only happens some of the time.

-Scott

[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Scott Wood,

In message <4A242313.3060307@freescale.com> you wrote:
>
> I already have that set to "no".  It's not the list e-mail that isn't 
> making it, but the direct CC e-mail.  It only happens some of the time.

To the best of my knowledge both messages get sent, but it seems some
servers drop them on the receiving side, if the message ID is already
known.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
A student of  probability  soon  realizes  that  by  its  nature  the
billion-to-one  chance  crops  up nine times out of ten, and that the
greatest odds boil down to a double-sided statement: it will  happen,
or it will not.         - Terry Pratchett, _The Dark Side of the Sun_

[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Scott Wood,

In message <4A242071.1010806@freescale.com> you wrote:
>
> > there is an increasing number of postings  with  loooooong  lists  of
> > recipients  (10  addresses  and  more);  usually several of these are
> > regular and active users of this mailing list  so  this  is  actually
> > redundant;  
> 
> It is not redundant -- including a person in the CC list brings the mail 
> to their attention faster (and with less chances of missing it) than if 
> they have to pick it out of the list.

An email message is a message is a message, isn't it? The message on
the list and the Cc: are identical, aren't they?

What is the difference whether you receive one or two identical copies
of a message?

> How about reconfiguring the list software instead?

I see no reason for that yet.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
If a train station is a place where a train stops,
                                           then what's a workstation?

[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

[T Ziomek]

On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 10:00:12PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Scott Wood,
> 
> In message <4A242071.1010806@freescale.com> you wrote:
> >
> > > there is an increasing number of postings  with  loooooong  lists  of
> > > recipients  (10  addresses  and  more);  usually several of these are
> > > regular and active users of this mailing list  so  this  is  actually
> > > redundant;  
> > 
> > It is not redundant -- including a person in the CC list brings the mail 
> > to their attention faster (and with less chances of missing it) than if 
> > they have to pick it out of the list.
> 
> An email message is a message is a message, isn't it? The message on
> the list and the Cc: are identical, aren't they?

Yes, but how one's MUA / mail client handles them may *not* be identi-
cal.

Quite a few people configure their MUA to prioritize messages based on
whether they are on the To: list, CC:, BCC:, or none of the above (i.e.
by list membership).

> What is the difference whether you receive one or two identical copies
> of a message?

It's a hassle and distraction to deal with duplicates.

> > How about reconfiguring the list software instead?
> 
> I see no reason for that yet.

+1 for not restricting the # of addressees absent a reason other than
"some of them are often redundant".

Tom
-- 
A: Because it breaks the logical        |
    flow of the message.                |   Email to user 'CTZ001'
                                        |             at 'email.mot.com'
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?     |

[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear T Ziomek,

In message <20090601203258.GG8553@email.mot.com> you wrote:
> 
> Yes, but how one's MUA / mail client handles them may *not* be identi-
> cal.
> 
> Quite a few people configure their MUA to prioritize messages based on
> whether they are on the To: list, CC:, BCC:, or none of the above (i.e.
> by list membership).

I read this as a pro for long cc: lists.

> > What is the difference whether you receive one or two identical copies
> > of a message?
> 
> It's a hassle and distraction to deal with duplicates.

This however is a clear con, isn't it?

> > > How about reconfiguring the list software instead?
> > 
> > I see no reason for that yet.
> 
> +1 for not restricting the # of addressees absent a reason other than
> "some of them are often redundant".

We neever before had any such problems. Currently  these  are  caused
because  some  messages have 5 (or more) samsung.com addresses listed
on Cc:; for example,  "[PATCH]  The  omap3  L2  cache  enable/disable
function to omap3 dependent code" has 6 such addresses on Cc:

I doubt that this is really  necessary.  In  this  specific  case,  a
company-internal   distribution   list   would   probably   be   more
appropriate.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
A Vulcan can  no  sooner  be  disloyal  than  he  can  exist  without
breathing.
	-- Kirk, "The Menagerie", stardate 3012.4

[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

[T Ziomek]

On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 10:51:02PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear T Ziomek,
> 
> In message <20090601203258.GG8553@email.mot.com> you wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, but how one's MUA / mail client handles them may *not* be identi-
> > cal.
> > 
> > Quite a few people configure their MUA to prioritize messages based on
> > whether they are on the To: list, CC:, BCC:, or none of the above (i.e.
> > by list membership).
> 
> I read this as a pro for long cc: lists.

Yes.

> > > What is the difference whether you receive one or two identical copies
> > > of a message?
> > 
> > It's a hassle and distraction to deal with duplicates.
> 
> This however is a clear con, isn't it?

To me, yes.  But I'm not active enough on any maillists to be heavily
impacted by it, and I've just dealt with it when it does occur.

I'd assume more active list participants have ways of dealing with that,
but they can answer that better than I.

> > > > How about reconfiguring the list software instead?
> > > 
> > > I see no reason for that yet.

I see no reason, at least none articulated as of yet, for the current
configuration.

> > +1 for not restricting the # of addressees absent a reason other than
> > "some of them are often redundant".
> 
> We neever before had any such problems. Currently  these  are  caused
> because  some  messages have 5 (or more) samsung.com addresses listed
> on Cc:; for example,  "[PATCH]  The  omap3  L2  cache  enable/disable
> function to omap3 dependent code" has 6 such addresses on Cc:

And what problem does that cause?

> I doubt that this is really  necessary.

"Necessary" is in the eye of the beholder here.  And IMHO the presump-
tion should be that the sender of an email is addressing it properly.
Absent either (a) clear, significant abuse of emails' recipients or (b)
a measurable and significant impact on the list provider [1], let people
CC who they consider appropriate and let the list server send emails to
whomever it is asked to send emails to.

[1]  E.g. exceeding bandwidth quotas, mail delivery being delayed for
hours, etc.

I can understand the hassle you've had manually approving msgs with many
recipients.  But the appropriate solution here is to remove the artifi-
cial limit that causes you to be involved in the first place.

> In  this  specific  case,  a
> company-internal   distribution   list   would   probably   be   more
> appropriate.

I don't understand what you envision here, or what it would accomplish.

-- 
A: Because it breaks the logical        |
    flow of the message.                |   Email to user 'CTZ001'
                                        |             at 'email.mot.com'
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?     |

[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear T Ziomek,

In message <20090601210846.GJ8553@email.mot.com> you wrote:
>
> > > > > How about reconfiguring the list software instead?
> > > > 
> > > > I see no reason for that yet.
> 
> I see no reason, at least none articulated as of yet, for the current
> configuration.

The current configurations is (1) the default one, and (2) pretty
useful to detect list abuse that has not been cought yet by other
means.

> > We neever before had any such problems. Currently  these  are  caused
> > because  some  messages have 5 (or more) samsung.com addresses listed
> > on Cc:; for example,  "[PATCH]  The  omap3  L2  cache  enable/disable
> > function to omap3 dependent code" has 6 such addresses on Cc:
> 
> And what problem does that cause?

Such messages need manual moderation which (1) delays the messages and
(2) causes additional work to the list moderator (me).

> > I doubt that this is really  necessary.
> 
> "Necessary" is in the eye of the beholder here.  And IMHO the presump-
> tion should be that the sender of an email is addressing it properly.
> Absent either (a) clear, significant abuse of emails' recipients or (b)
> a measurable and significant impact on the list provider [1], let people
> CC who they consider appropriate and let the list server send emails to
> whomever it is asked to send emails to.
> 
> [1]  E.g. exceeding bandwidth quotas, mail delivery being delayed for
> hours, etc.

Messages get delayed, and they exceed my patience quota ;-)

> > In  this  specific  case,  a
> > company-internal   distribution   list   would   probably   be   more
> > appropriate.
> 
> I don't understand what you envision here, or what it would accomplish.

They could Cc: u-boot-addicts at foo.com (i. e. just one address) and
distribute this internally to anybody who might be interested.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
I used to be indecisive, now I'm not sure.

[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

[Scott Wood]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear T Ziomek,
> 
> In message <20090601210846.GJ8553@email.mot.com> you wrote:
>>>>>> How about reconfiguring the list software instead?
>>>>> I see no reason for that yet.
>> I see no reason, at least none articulated as of yet, for the current
>> configuration.
> 
> The current configurations is (1) the default one, and (2) pretty
> useful to detect list abuse that has not been cought yet by other
> means.

I don't understand what CC lists have to do with abuse of the mailing 
list -- any mail generated by a CC is done at the sender's mail server. 
CC lists do not cause additional mail to be sent by lists.denx.de.

At worst, long-running threads can accumulate CCs that are no longer 
relevant to where the thread has gone (and I'm fine with encouraging 
those to be trimmed), but that's got nothing to do with the mailing list 
itself.  The only thing that having the list reject such mails will 
accomplish is that people *not* on the CC list won't see the mail, which 
is sort of the opposite of the intended effect.

>>> We neever before had any such problems. Currently  these  are  caused
>>> because  some  messages have 5 (or more) samsung.com addresses listed
>>> on Cc:; for example,  "[PATCH]  The  omap3  L2  cache  enable/disable
>>> function to omap3 dependent code" has 6 such addresses on Cc:
>> And what problem does that cause?
> 
> Such messages need manual moderation which (1) delays the messages and
> (2) causes additional work to the list moderator (me).

That problem is not caused by the CC lists, but rather the configuration 
of the list server.  What problem do the CC lists cause *by themselves*?

>>> In  this  specific  case,  a
>>> company-internal   distribution   list   would   probably   be   more
>>> appropriate.
>> I don't understand what you envision here, or what it would accomplish.
> 
> They could Cc: u-boot-addicts at foo.com (i. e. just one address) and
> distribute this internally to anybody who might be interested.

What would that accomplish (keeping in mind that the CCs are often not 
for expanding the distribution list but calling specific people's 
attention to the mail)?  If those "addicts" were uniformly interested in 
all u-boot mail, why wouldn't they just subscribe to the list?  If 
they're only interested in some threads, what makes you think it will be 
the same set of "5 (or more)" people each time?

How should I know that someone wants to be CCed by some address other 
than what they post with?

-Scott

[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

[T Ziomek]

On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 12:00:21AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear T Ziomek,
> 
> In message <20090601210846.GJ8553@email.mot.com> you wrote:
> >
> > > > > > How about reconfiguring the list software instead?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I see no reason for that yet.
> > 
> > I see no reason, at least none articulated as of yet, for the current
> > configuration.
> 
> The current configurations is (1) the default one,

Unless there's a good reason it's the default, I wouldn't defer to that
in the presence of good arguments otherwise.

>and (2) pretty
> useful to detect list abuse that has not been cought yet by other
> means.

What sort(s) of abuse has configuration this helped catch?

> > > We neever before had any such problems. Currently  these  are  caused
> > > because  some  messages have 5 (or more) samsung.com addresses listed
> > > on Cc:; for example,  "[PATCH]  The  omap3  L2  cache  enable/disable
> > > function to omap3 dependent code" has 6 such addresses on Cc:
> > 
> > And what problem does that cause?
> 
> Such messages need manual moderation which (1) delays the messages and
> (2) causes additional work to the list moderator (me).

But that's a problem caused by the list server's config, not inherently
by the # of CCs.

> > > I doubt that this is really  necessary.
> > 
> > "Necessary" is in the eye of the beholder here.  And IMHO the presump-
> > tion should be that the sender of an email is addressing it properly.
> > Absent either (a) clear, significant abuse of emails' recipients or (b)
> > a measurable and significant impact on the list provider [1], let people
> > CC who they consider appropriate and let the list server send emails to
> > whomever it is asked to send emails to.
> > 
> > [1]  E.g. exceeding bandwidth quotas, mail delivery being delayed for
> > hours, etc.

I take this example back; as Scott reminds us the CCs don't affect the
list server (except for a few more bytes in the headers of a message it
relays).  In which case I have even more trouble seeing the harm in re-
moving the list server's [apparently arbitrary and unsubstantiated] CC
limit.  Or at least changing it to a much higher number.

> Messages get delayed, and they exceed my patience quota ;-)

Again, not inherently because of having "too many" CCs.


Raise/remove the limit, and your immediate issue is resolved.  What's
not to like?

Tom
-- 
A: Because it breaks the logical        |
    flow of the message.                |   Email to user 'CTZ001'
                                        |             at 'email.mot.com'
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?     |

[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

[Stefan Roese]

On Monday 01 June 2009 22:00:12 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > > there is an increasing number of postings  with  loooooong  lists  of
> > > recipients  (10  addresses  and  more);  usually several of these are
> > > regular and active users of this mailing list  so  this  is  actually
> > > redundant;
> >
> > It is not redundant -- including a person in the CC list brings the mail
> > to their attention faster (and with less chances of missing it) than if
> > they have to pick it out of the list.
>
> An email message is a message is a message, isn't it? The message on
> the list and the Cc: are identical, aren't they?

No, they not identical. For example my internal mail filtering will move all 
mails directed to the list to a special u-boot list folder and those mails 
addressed to me directly not. So I see all mails addressed to me in my inbox 
which helps me to not miss anything relevant for me (ppc4xx etc).

Best regards,
Stefan

=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80  Email: office at denx.de
=====================================================================

[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

[HeungJun, Kim]

Dear Wolfgang & everyone,

It happened ?Too many recipients to the message?, and I'm very sorry that my messages's many CC cause this event. 

Before that, I didn't find the recipients # limits on the u-boot mailinglist guidelines. So, I just send the messages like other my situation.

If It's hard to configure mailing list server, I think the warnning about?The limit of CC? is showed on the u-boot mailinglist guidlines or anywhere.

Thanks & Sorry.

Best Regards,
Riverful


----- ?? ??? -----
?? ??: T Ziomek <ctz001@email.mot.com>
?? ??: 2009? 6? 2? ??? ?? 9:09
?? ??: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
??: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>; u-boot at lists.denx.de
??: Re: [U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 12:00:21AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear T Ziomek,
> 
> In message <20090601210846.GJ8553@email.mot.com> you wrote:
> >
> > > > > > How about reconfiguring the list software instead?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I see no reason for that yet.
> > 
> > I see no reason, at least none articulated as of yet, for the current
> > configuration.
> 
> The current configurations is (1) the default one,

Unless there's a good reason it's the default, I wouldn't defer to that
in the presence of good arguments otherwise.

>and (2) pretty
> useful to detect list abuse that has not been cought yet by other
> means.

What sort(s) of abuse has configuration this helped catch?

> > > We neever before had any such problems. Currently  these  are  caused
> > > because  some  messages have 5 (or more) samsung.com addresses listed
> > > on Cc:; for example,  "[PATCH]  The  omap3  L2  cache  enable/disable
> > > function to omap3 dependent code" has 6 such addresses on Cc:
> > 
> > And what problem does that cause?
> 
> Such messages need manual moderation which (1) delays the messages and
> (2) causes additional work to the list moderator (me).

But that's a problem caused by the list server's config, not inherently
by the # of CCs.

> > > I doubt that this is really  necessary.
> > 
> > "Necessary" is in the eye of the beholder here.  And IMHO the presump-
> > tion should be that the sender of an email is addressing it properly.
> > Absent either (a) clear, significant abuse of emails' recipients or (b)
> > a measurable and significant impact on the list provider [1], let people
> > CC who they consider appropriate and let the list server send emails to
> > whomever it is asked to send emails to.
> > 
> > [1]  E.g. exceeding bandwidth quotas, mail delivery being delayed for
> > hours, etc.

I take this example back; as Scott reminds us the CCs don't affect the
list server (except for a few more bytes in the headers of a message it
relays).  In which case I have even more trouble seeing the harm in re-
moving the list server's [apparently arbitrary and unsubstantiated] CC
limit.  Or at least changing it to a much higher number.

> Messages get delayed, and they exceed my patience quota ;-)

Again, not inherently because of having "too many" CCs.


Raise/remove the limit, and your immediate issue is resolved.  What's
not to like?

Tom
-- 
A: Because it breaks the logical        |
    flow of the message.                |   Email to user 'CTZ001'
                                        |             at 'email.mot.com'
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?     |
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot at lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot