Re: [ga] Automated Cross Posting Limits

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Patrick Corliss wrote:
> 
> 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.

I don't think the 5 post limit is a good idea in the first place, but if
we're going to have it, then automatic enforcement seems a good idea.
 
> 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 is unecessary, I think. The From: header has this info already.

> >  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

Nor I.

> 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.

Right. If you're going to use software to count posts, then it should reject
posts over the limit. 

The only alternative I see would be to have it notify both the user and the
monitors. Presumably this would not be a warning; the expectation should be
that the monitors would boot the user off. If not, then we have an unenforced
rule. If they do suspend such users, then I think the penalty is excessive.
Better to just stop the over-posting rather than kicking people out.
 
> 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.

A problem then is what to do about people who bypass the software in the
obvious way by using multiple addresses.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html