From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: T Ziomek <ctz001@email.mot.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 19:09:22 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message
In-Reply-To: <20090601220021.3F722832E416@gemini.denx.de>
References: <20090601175808.BD41D832E416@gemini.denx.de>
	<4A242071.1010806@freescale.com>
	<20090601200012.D8869832E416@gemini.denx.de>
	<20090601203258.GG8553@email.mot.com>
	<20090601205102.A6047832E416@gemini.denx.de>
	<20090601210846.GJ8553@email.mot.com>
	<20090601220021.3F722832E416@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <20090602000922.GK8553@email.mot.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

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?     |