ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] [Fwd: Automated Cross Posting Limits]

Re-posted here at the request of the Alternate Chair.

Bill Lovell

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm



Excellent idea, William, and improved upon by Patrick's
suggestion. The server has a clock, of course, and can
determine the time periods without regard to the location
and time zone of the sender. A person goes past 5, and
they get it returned. No subjectivity, no appeals, no
nuthin'.  (I'm assuming that the clock would not be put
on ga-full -- the place to complain, methinks.) It was for
those kinds of tasks that computers were invented,
wasn't it?  :-)

We're discussing the limit of 5/24, but the heading refers
to "cross posting." The server could be programmed to
preclude that as well, or indeed to route a  post to the
list on which the subject was first raised, which would
preclude people -- no names, please -- from list hopping
unless they took the trouble to edit the subject line.
(A bit far out, I'll admit, but maybe worth thinking about.
But maybe not.)

And imagine the bandwidth spared because we'd all be
done discussing this issue.  I say start it up -- not to be
meddled with for at least 3 months, and let's see how it
works.

My congratulations to both William X. Walsh and to
Patrick Corliss -- and to Kristy McKee and anyone
else whom I've not noticed who may have added to
the idea.

Bill Lovell

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> This will solve much a the problem.
>
> I'd appreciate some support.  Perhaps even a second ?
> Thank you kindly
>
> Patrick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>
> To: William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> Cc: [ga] <ga@dnso.org>
> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 23:25:58 +1000
> Subject: Automated Cross Posting Limits
>
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 03:49:35 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > The list server software should be configured to reject any post from
> > the same sender over 5 within a 24 hour period.
>
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 04:17:33 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > If the Secretariat would add a
> >
> > X-Posted-By: originalsender@domain.com
> >
> > header to every email sent to the list (replacing
> > originalsender@domain.com with the actual poster's address of course)
> > it would be trivial for a "Post Counter" to be run, which counts the
> > number of posts from each sender.  This could be used to generate an
> > automatic "warning" to the sender, thus providing a disincentive to
> > further posts beyond the limit.
>
> Hi William
>
> I agree that automating the cross-posting limits would solve many problems.
> In particular, it would:
>
> (1)    reduce the "crowding" effect of excess postings to the lists
> (2)    dispel any doubts and fears held by the person posting
> (3)    eliminate those complaints and so reduce the list monitors work
> (4)    save having to keep posting reminders every month or so
>
> However, I don't agree that the poster should just be sent a warning as some
> members of the list may simply ignore the warning and continue to post
> excessively.  I therefore propose that:
>
> The mailing list server software be configured for each of the various [ga]
> lists to reject any post from the same sender over 5 within a 24 hour
> period.  Any rejected post should be returned to the sender with a notice
> explaining why the post was rejected.
>
> If this suggestion can be supported, I am sure that much of the present
> debate over the rules and list monitoring would be quickly eliminated.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>