Re: [LAD] [LAU] limiting email traffic

On Thursday 31 October 2013 12:25:30 Robin Gareus wrote:
> On 10/31/2013 04:19 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
> [..]
>
> > Have the lists history been mined to see how many "valuable" users
> > violate this proposed policy one some days? Perhaps they go a week and
> > then have 20 posts in one day and then go another week?
>
> Mined, no. The problem here is the definition of 'valuable'.

Of course... ~;-)
>
> I did elaborated a bit more on this when addressing the consortium about
> this:
>
> "I've checked some random samples and found that no reasonable[...]
> discussion on the LA lists in the last 2 years required more than 5
> posts per user per day."
> Now that's still somewhat subjective.

I don't think of myself as an abuser but I get a vague feeling that there may
have been a day here and there where I would have run up against these
limits.

If I get the energy and some spare time, I may try and run a little script
against a list history and see what I can discover.

It does not worry me too much if I bump into the limit occasionally as I don't
think what I contribute iss all that urgent ever but I would hate to see some
people I look forward to reading bump into it.
>
> The current settings are rather conservative. With these, only four
> persons would have received warnings (two of them repeatedly) in the
> last two years, and only one would have been temporarily banned (also
> more than once).
>
> Anyway we intentionally chose a short ban time (6h). The idea is not to
> snub or censor. Just to let things calm down a bit.
>
> None of the persons who'd have triggered the warning are high-profile
> developers or major contributors to linux audio software architecture or
> ecosystem.
>
> ciao,
> robin

all the best,

drew
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Thu Oct 31 20:15:03 2013