[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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@foo.com (i. e. just one address) and distribute this internally to anybody who might be interested.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
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@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
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
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@denx.de =====================================================================
participants (5)
-
Jerry Van Baren -
Scott Wood -
Stefan Roese -
T Ziomek -
Wolfgang Denk