On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:39:32 -0400
bob Puff@NLE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, can't say I've seen the long turnaround, but you could still
play with the numbers, based on the fact that the mailbot will
generate one reply for every message it receives. In other words,
you could make a rule
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 20:57:38 -0700
Chuq Von Rospach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(we could, I guess, get into my position that e-mail is a horrible
way to do this sort of stuff... After all, on a typical discussion
list, what's usually the first thing that happens after a bunch of
people get
On Monday, June 25, 2001, at 10:43 PM, J C Lawrence wrote:
I have a long standing rule on how I reward such people: I
unsubscribe them, immediately if not sooner.
I'm not that hard-@ss yet, but it's one reason why I have (and enforce)
a don't try to be a list mom rule. My rules are
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:46:02 -0700
Chuq Von Rospach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2001, at 10:43 PM, J C Lawrence wrote:
I have a long standing rule on how I reward such people: I
unsubscribe them, immediately if not sooner.
I'm not that hard-@ss yet...
Hehn. And who is
claw == [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
claw Ultimately I'd like to see separate moderate queues for the
claw different hold reasons (at least at the UI level). Thus,
claw for instance I'd like to be able to view just the messages
claw held for moderator approval, just those
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
Did the guy who set up the mailbot give mailman any way of telling this
was a mailbot, or a loop? Did they include any keywords, like out of
the office or vacation or I am an idiot who's mailbot is going to
make you crazy now?
[snip]
If you can find something the
On Monday, June 25, 2001, at 04:22 PM, Amanda wrote:
I now
have a filter that reads something like this: If this text appears in
the
subject or body of the message, send it to the trash mailbox: out of the
office; [..etc...]
And once you've done that, add in german, french, russian,
On Monday, June 25, 2001, at 08:21 PM, Bob Puff@NLE wrote:
Relatively easy. Set a limit on how many messages a user can post in
say a 10 minute period. Make it user editable. If you get 8, you've
got a loop!
that slows it down, but doesn't catch any but the worst loops. It's just
as
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2001, at 08:21 PM, Bob Puff@NLE wrote:
Relatively easy. Set a limit on how many messages a user can post in
say a 10 minute period. Make it user editable. If you get 8, you've
got a loop!
that slows it down, but doesn't catch any but
CVR == Chuq Von Rospach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would be nice if Mailman was more resistant to these mail
loops [2].
CVR Suggestions on how?
One approachable suggestion: put a governor on the number of messages
any one address is allowed to post to a list per time period.
On Monday, June 25, 2001, at 09:13 PM, Bob Puff@NLE wrote:
That was one wild autoresponder!
yeah. Made ME much more aware of why these things need to behave
properly. I try, although sometimes I fall short with my stuff.
But I still maintain that having the two variables I mentioned, x
CVR == Chuq Von Rospach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CVR Could the new queueing system be set up with a timed-backoff
CVR delay? you'd have to keep a fair amount of state, but the
CVR minimum time between postings for a given user is, say, 30
CVR minutes, and every time they post
On Monday, June 25, 2001, at 09:19 PM, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
Nope, and I agree with everything you've said. What I was thinking of
was flagging situations where you see 10 or 50 or 100 posts from the
same address in the span of a couple of minutes.
But you won't see that, Barry. Think
On Monday, June 25, 2001, at 09:41 PM, Bob Puff@NLE wrote:
I agree that false positives are bad. But let's take a look at the
past few messages people have posted,
true -- but it's no excuse to fix it badly. Or simply create other
problems.
I doubt even the most prolific poster is
14 matches
Mail list logo
