Total of 79 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Oct 4 08:42:50 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
8.86% |7 | 9.36% |66764 | hsan...@isdg.net
3.80% |3 | 9.16% |65302 |
Total of messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Oct 4 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
+--++--+
Total of 127 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Sep 27 01:00:00 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
6.30% |8 | 5.79% |56383 | s...@resistor.net
5.51% |7 | 4.93% |47948 | ra...@psg.com
Total of messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Sep 20 14:38:57 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
+--++--+
Total of messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Sep 20 14:39:19 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
+--++--+
Total of 209 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Sep 20 14:42:33 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
3.83% |8 | 7.47% | 133327 | o...@nlnetlabs.nl
5.74% | 12 | 4.92% |87860 |
On Sep 20, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Total of messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Sep 20 14:38:57 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
Total of 353 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Sep 13 00:53:04 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
11.33% | 40 | 9.28% | 281400 | ted.le...@nominum.com
6.80% | 24 | 8.08% | 244815 |
Total of 149 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Sep 6 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
7.38% | 11 | 6.82% |81747 | sm+i...@elandsys.com
5.37% |8 | 4.69% |56229 |
Total of 140 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Aug 30 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
6.43% |9 | 6.04% |76439 | sm+i...@elandsys.com
2.86% |4 | 7.42% |93857 |
Total of 272 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Aug 23 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.88% | 16 | 5.06% | 118905 | d...@dcrocker.net
5.51% | 15 | 5.10% | 119919 |
Total of 125 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Aug 16 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
7.20% |9 | 10.47% | 108804 | hal...@gmail.com
5.60% |7 | 8.58% |89136 |
Total of 288 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Aug 9 00:53:03 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
7.29% | 21 | 6.58% | 137704 | ted.le...@nominum.com
4.86% | 14 | 4.24% |88736 |
I agree with you John, I also not objecting it but wanted more meaning into
the report when I receive it, as I suggested before for clarifications.
I don't think majority in IETF think it is meaningless so that is why I
want to clarify the meaning and discuss what most may not want to discuss.
If
If one or two people are doing most of the posting to a list, that means
something is out of balance. Summary statistics can be used as an
indicator that something should be done to encourage diversity, or get
people back on topic, etc.
On Aug 5, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree with you John, I also not objecting it but wanted more meaning into
the report when I receive it, as I suggested before for clarifications.
It's just a weekly posting summary of raw stats - it's not a
On 3 Aug 2013 11:14, Ole Jacobsen (ole) o...@cisco.com wrote:
It was never a distraction until AB started complaining about it. Been
serving a useful purpose for many, many years. Procmail is your friend.
+1 for that
--- Roger ---
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor Publisher
http://cisco.com/ipj
All,
If there is a serious drive to discontinue the weekly posting
summary - I strongly object.
I don't think its main benefit is be to stop excessive or of topic
posting. I'm not saying that list managers and list owners should look
at that aspect.
At least for me it serves as a safety net
If there is a serious drive to discontinue the weekly posting
summary - I strongly object.
As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks it's fine.
Seems like rough consensus to me.
R's,
John
On 8/4/13 11:53 AM, John Levine wrote:
As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks it's fine.
More to the point, the objections that are being raised appear
to be bogus and based in a misunderstanding of how the IETF
operates.
Melinda
On 04/08/13 20:53, John Levine wrote:
If there is a serious drive to discontinue the weekly posting
summary - I strongly object.
As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks it's fine.
Seems like rough consensus to me.
+1
Aaron
R's,
John
On 4 Aug 2013, at 20:53, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
If there is a serious drive to discontinue the weekly posting
summary - I strongly object.
As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks it's fine.
Seems like rough consensus to me.
And the code is running…
Tim
--On Sunday, August 04, 2013 19:53 + John Levine
jo...@taugh.com wrote:
If there is a serious drive to discontinue the weekly posting
summary - I strongly object.
As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks
it's fine.
I do not want to be recorded as thinking it is
First, I'd like to highlight something that is important. There is no inherent
preference to posting a lot, a moderate amount, or none at all. Everything
depends on context. If you are providing useful input and furthering the
discussion, a lot of mails is ok. And no mails can be a problem,
Hi Thomas,
Please note that the week did not end yet (IMO ends on Saturday night)
but your week is starting from Friday and end on Thursday night. If we
follow your week then I prefer if you post at end of Friday (as in the
end of working days of 5 in each week). However, in my comment below I
On 3 aug 2013, at 08:46, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
However, in my comment below I
will follow the week as done in world calender, start from Sunday
(mornings) and ends on Saturday (nights).
The day a week starts, and what days are working days in a week, differs
On 8/3/13, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
On 3 aug 2013, at 08:46, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
I prefer if you post at end of Friday (as in the end of working days of 5 in
each week).
However, in my comment below I
will follow the week as done in world
Am Aug 3, 2013 um 9:05 schrieb Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com:
On 8/3/13, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
On 3 aug 2013, at 08:46, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
I prefer if you post at end of Friday (as in the end of working days of 5
in each
Hi,
I don't care if this report is published or not, but I will point
out that the 1 week sample period is not that useful if
the intent is to spot excessive posting.
Somebody could be following up on 1 thread, and not post again
for a year. Somebody could be participating in an IETF Last Call
It was never a distraction until AB started complaining about it. Been serving
a useful purpose for many, many years. Procmail is your friend.
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor Publisher
http://cisco.com/ipj
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 3, 2013, at 9:12, Heasley h...@shrubbery.net wrote:
Am Aug 3, 2013
I prefer if you post at end of Friday (as in the end of working days of 5
in each
week).
There are seven days in most weeks, in my experience.
I suggested to Thomas to submit report in end of Friday
I suggest that anyone who wants something different simply writes code for
something
On Aug 3, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
I prefer if you post at end of Friday (as in the end of working days of 5
in each
week).
There are seven days in most weeks, in my experience.
I suggested to Thomas to submit report in end of Friday
I suggest that
On 08/03/13 05:48, Adrian Farrel allegedly wrote:
Have you considered not reading it?
+1. Especially during IETF week, people on various lists are losing
track of their delete key, or the ability to set mail filter rules.
Total of 222 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Aug 2 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
4.95% | 11 | 7.45% | 129461 | abdussalambar...@gmail.com
5.41% | 12 | 6.26% | 108812 |
Total of 109 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jul 26 00:53:03 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
13.76% | 15 | 21.67% | 210921 | aal...@blackberry.com
9.17% | 10 | 12.47% | 121366 |
Total of 140 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jul 19 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.71% |8 | 8.08% |97324 | hal...@gmail.com
6.43% |9 | 6.96% |83850 |
Total of 135 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jul 12 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.19% |7 | 5.14% |54819 | l.w...@surrey.ac.uk
5.19% |7 | 4.23% |45126 |
Total of 92 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jul 5 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
4.35% |4 | 4.01% |25872 | john-i...@jck.com
4.35% |4 | 3.77% |24329 | m...@sap.com
Total of 177 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jun 28 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.65% | 10 | 8.11% | 110934 | hal...@gmail.com
5.65% | 10 | 5.57% |76202 |
Total of 164 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jun 21 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
7.93% | 13 | 6.46% |83622 | stpe...@stpeter.im
6.10% | 10 | 5.81% |75305 |
* For Week 25 in 2013
About 17 subjects discussed, about 6 IETF LCs, about 3 Gen-Art Review.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Messages | Bytes | Who
+--++--+
1.83% | 3 | 2.01% | 25980 |
AB
Thomas started posting these weekly reports many years
ago as a service to the community to remind us all that
posting to ietf@ietf.org contributes to the information
and work overload of the IETF community as a whole.
The numbers are a reminder to think carefully about what
you send to the
+1 (and that will be my only posting on this subject, I suggest
that if you don't get Stewart's drift you stop sending mails to
the list until you do)
/Loa
On 2013-06-21 15:00, Stewart Bryant wrote:
AB
Thomas started posting these weekly reports many years
ago as a service to the community
Hi Stewart,
I don't have any problem with the report/reminder only that it has missing
important information. The subjects of discussions are not counted, so I
counted them. Also the report does not distinguish between general-posting
and replying to IETF LCs.
AB
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:00
These are valid points. For a long time, I used a public forum support
reporter for our support process which categorized daily and hourly
messaging patterns, hottest threads and topics and reply efficiency
concepts. Basically to see how many messages were replied to in general
and how many
It seems to me that you have missed the fact that the IETF is a
volunteer organization. The vast majority of us appreciate that
Thomas creates this summary. If you feel different information
would be useful, then create your own report and share the results,
to at least to see if your version is
Total of 158 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jun 14 00:53:03 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
10.13% | 16 | 9.82% | 124800 | ted.le...@nominum.com
5.06% |8 | 6.98% |88757 |
As long the subject clearly identifies a last call request thread, I
don't see why the LC's cannot stay here.
There are already too many mailing lists in the world.
My humble opinion.
~Carlos
On 6/7/13 5:00 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 6/7/13 11:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Rule 1 for
On 06/08/2013 02:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Rule 1 for complex and divergent mail threads is to change the
Subject header when the subject changes. If you don't do that,
your mail is rather likely to get junked.
I think that IETF last call threads should stay on the main IETF
discussion
[ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Glen Zorn
[glenz...@gmail.com]
Sent: 08 June 2013 07:31
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Best list for IETF last calls [was: Weekly posting summary for
ietf@ietf.org]
On 06/08/2013 02:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Rule 1 for complex and divergent mail
On Jun 7, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
What the weekly stats really ought to tally up is the readers/postings
ratio, so that folk would get more direct feedback as to whether what they are
posting is actually being read...
My strong suspicion would be that there is strong
: 08 June 2013 07:31
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Best list for IETF last calls [was: Weekly posting summary for
ietf@ietf.org]
On 06/08/2013 02:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Rule 1 for complex and divergent mail threads is to change the
Subject header when the subject changes
At 15:58 07-06-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
And it is getting to that conclusion from the above that often
troubles me about the posting summary list rankings. Assuming a
significant issues shows up on the list, whether in conjunction
with a Last Call or something else. Posting a comment and
Hi thomas,
AB Comment on the summary report
I recommend to add a column for subjects (number of subjects),
because the number of subject participated in is very important is
such summary.
I think the pupose of this summary should be added as well in each
post, I don't know why, only I expect
On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:33 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
I recommend to add a column for subjects (number of subjects),
because the number of subject participated in is very important is
such summary.
It has always been my assumption that the point of this summary was
What the weekly stats really ought to tally up is the readers/postings
ratio, so that folk would get more direct feedback as to whether what they are
posting is actually being read...
My strong suspicion would be that there is strong negative correlation
between frequency of posts and actual
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
What the weekly stats really ought to tally up is the readers/postings
ratio, so that folk would get more direct feedback as to whether what they
are
posting is actually being read...
My strong suspicion would be that
On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman
a...@yumaworks.commailto:a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
So why not move the signal?
Put IETF Last Call mail on last-c...@ietf.orgmailto:last-c...@ietf.org and
leave this list for everything else.
The discussion still has to happen somewhere. I certainly am
On 7 Jun 2013, at 16:52, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
So why not move the signal?
Put IETF Last Call mail on last-c...@ietf.org and leave this list for
everything else.
The discussion still has to happen
As long as the summary has been brought up ...
I've wondered for some time whether the reported bytes is the
whole message I send included context quotes, or if there is
an attempt by the summary logic to factor out quoted
content.
Dave Morris
From: David Morris d...@xpasc.com
I've wondered for some time whether the reported bytes is the whole
message I send included context quotes, or if there is an attempt by
the summary logic to factor out quoted content.
I think it's a _feature_ to count the included content,
On Jun 7, 2013, at 12:04 PM, David Morris d...@xpasc.com wrote:
I've wondered for some time whether the reported bytes is the
whole message I send included context quotes, or if there is
an attempt by the summary logic to factor out quoted
content.
A penalty for top-posting sounds okay to me!
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
So why not move the signal?
Put IETF Last Call mail on last-c...@ietf.org and leave this list for
everything else.
The discussion still has to
On 6/7/13 6:03 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
On 7 Jun 2013, at 16:52, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com
mailto:ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com
mailto:a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
So why not move the signal?
Put IETF Last Call mail
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: David Morris d...@xpasc.com
I've wondered for some time whether the reported bytes is the whole
message I send included context quotes, or if there is an attempt by
the summary logic to factor out quoted content.
I think
On 7 Jun 2013, at 17:12, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 6/7/13 6:03 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
As another example, the v6ops list has recently also had four threads run
well over the 100 message count, specifically end to end response time, ULA
usage, being careful about ULAs and the
I've wondered for some time whether the reported bytes is the
whole message I send included context quotes, or if there is
an attempt by the summary logic to factor out quoted
content.
Original script is here:
http://www.hactrn.net/hacks/mh-list-traffic/mh-list-traffic
I don't think I've
Andy == Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com writes:
Andy So why not move the signal?
Andy Put IETF Last Call mail on last-c...@ietf.org and leave this list for
Andy everything else.
Okay, that would work for me.
Where would the reply-to: on those posts be set to?
I also don't think we
Thomas,
From my perspective, the intention/usefulness of the weekly posting is
to give folk a high-level view of who is posting and how often. It is
not uncommon to see certain individuals stand out. In some cases, that
makes perfect sense -- and the signal level is high. In other cases,
it
I like the idea of a separate list for last calls. It would not solve
the issue of noise for all of us (and not reduce the overall amount of
emails), but it would separate general discussions from IETF LCs. I
have IETF emails filtered by mailing list into different IMAP folders,
and thus a
+1
Em 07/06/2013 15:09, Ulrich Herberg escreveu:
I like the idea of a separate list for last calls. It would not solve
the issue of noise for all of us (and not reduce the overall amount of
emails), but it would separate general discussions from IETF LCs. I
have IETF emails filtered by
Rule 1 for complex and divergent mail threads is to change the
Subject header when the subject changes. If you don't do that,
your mail is rather likely to get junked.
I think that IETF last call threads should stay on the main IETF
discussion list. That is exactly the right place for them.
It's
On 6/7/13 11:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Rule 1 for complex and divergent mail threads is to change the
Subject header when the subject changes. If you don't do that,
your mail is rather likely to get junked.
I think that IETF last call threads should stay on the main IETF
discussion
--On Friday, 07 June, 2013 10:57 -0700 Bob Hinden
bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas,
From my perspective, the intention/usefulness of the weekly
posting is to give folk a high-level view of who is posting
and how often. It is not uncommon to see certain individuals
stand out. In some
I have mixed opinions, filters in general work well (some false
positives like these ones that are moved to my Last Call filter) but
in general it is ok.
But I would not oppose to a new list for LC only.
Regards,
as
On 6/7/13 4:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think that IETF
Total of 146 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jun 7 00:53:03 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
10.27% | 15 | 9.96% | 125797 | abdussalambar...@gmail.com
4.11% |6 | 6.44% |81389 |
Total of 283 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 31 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
6.71% | 19 | 6.76% | 149502 | abdussalambar...@gmail.com
5.30% | 15 | 4.74% | 104777 |
Total of 149 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 24 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
0.67% |1 | 28.96% | 458641 | wmwang2...@hotmail.com
12.75% | 19 | 9.43% | 149309 |
Total of 151 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 17 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
9.27% | 14 | 9.58% | 113593 | mo...@network-heretics.com
9.27% | 14 | 7.82% |92650 |
Total of 138 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 10 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
7.25% | 10 | 8.90% |93387 | ma...@isc.org
6.52% |9 | 7.85% |82311 | nar...@us.ibm.com
Total of 226 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 3 00:53:03 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
7.08% | 16 | 6.62% | 118279 | d...@dcrocker.net
3.54% |8 | 3.01% |53739 | ves...@tana.it
Total of 96 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 26 00:53:03 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
9.38% |9 | 8.36% |68598 | fg...@si6networks.com
4.17% |4 | 7.84% |64307 |
Total of 166 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 19 07:03:54 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
8.43% | 14 | 7.88% | 102717 | ted.le...@nominum.com
5.42% |9 | 6.32% |82361 |
Total of messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 19 07:07:07 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
+--++--+
Total of messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 19 00:53:03 EDT 2013
Total of 173 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 12 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.20% |9 | 4.70% |62873 | ted.le...@nominum.com
4.05% |7 | 3.16% |42214 |
Total of 99 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Apr 5 00:53:06 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
6.06% |6 | 5.52% |45474 | s...@resistor.net
5.05% |5 | 4.08% |33620 |
Total of 159 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Mar 29 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
8.18% | 13 | 18.77% | 304221 | ste...@aaa-sec.com
6.29% | 10 | 9.61% | 155782 |
Total of 246 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Mar 22 00:53:03 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
4.88% | 12 | 6.03% | 128365 | d...@dcrocker.net
0.41% |1 | 9.07% | 192830 | f...@clock.org
Total of 264 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Mar 15 00:53:08 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.30% | 14 | 4.47% | 108106 | ra...@qti.qualcomm.com
4.92% | 13 | 3.81% |92151 |
Total of 316 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Mar 8 00:53:03 EST 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.70% | 18 | 6.08% | 142470 | mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com
4.43% | 14 | 5.14% | 120543 |
Total of 164 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Mar 1 00:53:03 EST 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
4.88% |8 | 5.91% |73893 | mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com
3.66% |6 | 5.37% |67104 |
Total of 60 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Feb 22 00:53:02 EST 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
3.33% |2 | 16.69% |80360 | roland.bl...@kit.edu
6.67% |4 | 6.60% |31766 |
Total of 101 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Feb 15 00:53:02 EST 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
14.85% | 15 | 13.68% | 130635 | abdussalambar...@gmail.com
8.91% |9 | 7.09% |67750 |
Total of 78 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Feb 8 00:53:02 EST 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
10.26% |8 | 9.28% |58558 | s...@resistor.net
6.41% |5 | 7.15% |45081 |
Total of 55 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Feb 1 00:53:02 EST 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
14.55% |8 | 12.99% |66915 | stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie
5.45% |3 | 10.74% |55297 |
Total of 97 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jan 25 00:53:03 EST 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
1.03% |1 | 25.97% | 295206 | bcla...@cisco.com
5.15% |5 | 4.19% |47613 |
Total of 101 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jan 18 00:53:02 EST 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
17.82% | 18 | 18.44% | 184336 | stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie
6.93% |7 | 4.59% |45869 |
Total of 166 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jan 11 00:53:03 EST 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
11.45% | 19 | 7.53% | 127480 | abdussalambar...@gmail.com
7.23% | 12 | 7.18% | 121646 |
Total of 92 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jan 4 00:53:06 EST 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
8.70% |8 | 14.15% | 126350 | hal...@gmail.com
8.70% |8 | 13.78% | 123045 |
1 - 100 of 467 matches
Mail list logo
