> Why not try reading it the way it was intended: don't expect > anyone to monitor this list and take action on anything they > see here, because that's just gravy if they have time -- > if you want results, contact the person who gets paid based > on your satisfaction and success.
I think the intention of Paul's original post was to try to get information from the discuss-list members that he hadn't yet been able to get from support. I've done this many times myself, and have provided such information many times as well. Everyone knows it's not the official source for policy answers, but many times it's the most efficient place to get real world answers in a hurry. In my opinion the availability of this list for these unofficial queries has historically been a major factor in OpenSRS' success, and the airing of complaints has actually been a benefit to Tucows. There was a time in the past I was a heavy user of the batch server. I also wanted to know what the official limits were, but as someone who has been trained to never ask a question I didn't really want to hear the answer to, I did not ask, but used the server to the limit with my fingers crossed. I'm sure I had many simultaneous connections to the server open at the same time many others did (it isn't hard to guess what time of the day that was), and although I often experienced server problems due to overloading, I was never reprimanded for it. My guess is that OpenSRS would rather handle the question of appropriate use on a case by case basis rather than publishing guidelines, and that if Paul's use of the server becomes a problem they will let him know before taking more drastic action. But this is only my guess. >From a practical standpoint, waiting for each connection to terminate before opening a new one may not be very, let's say, effective.
