On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 05:21:55PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 06:08:25PM +0100, Domen Puncer wrote:
> > If you are subscribed to it, you already know the address. If you are not,
> > you probably don't want bounces.
>
> I don't particularly agree with this policy of removing such documentation,
> especially as I have a good reason to implement such policy on my mailing
> lists.
>
> If we must, I guess it's fine, but I expect *you* to provide the support
> to people to people who don't know where to go for it if *you* remove this.
I'm sometimes doing patches that cover many files, and I want to Cc the
patches to the developers in question.
If after sending 10 patches I get 5 "this is a subscribers-only list"
mails, I'm not going to subscribe to 5 lists, forward the patches to
them and unsubscribe again after this (and repeat this if there's some
discussion regarding one of these patches).
In my experience, the best solution is a list policy that allows
subscribers to post and requires moderator approval for non-members.
This policy that is already used by several lists listed in MAINTAINERS
is IMHO a good compromise between avoiding spam and allowing
non-subscribers to post to the list.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 06:54:38PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 05:21:55PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > If we must, I guess it's fine, but I expect *you* to provide the support
> > to people to people who don't know where to go for it if *you* remove this.
>
> I'm sometimes doing patches that cover many files, and I want to Cc the
> patches to the developers in question.
>
> If after sending 10 patches I get 5 "this is a subscribers-only list"
> mails, I'm not going to subscribe to 5 lists, forward the patches to
> them and unsubscribe again after this (and repeat this if there's some
> discussion regarding one of these patches).
>
> In my experience, the best solution is a list policy that allows
> subscribers to post and requires moderator approval for non-members.
> This policy that is already used by several lists listed in MAINTAINERS
> is IMHO a good compromise between avoiding spam and allowing
> non-subscribers to post to the list.
Well, that's precisely what happens with these lists - your post ends
up in the moderator approval queue. They do generally find their way
from there into the appropriate peoples mailboxes (iow, mine).
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial core
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 06:54:38PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I'm sometimes doing patches that cover many files, and I want to Cc the
> patches to the developers in question.
>
> If after sending 10 patches I get 5 "this is a subscribers-only list"
> mails, I'm not going to subscribe to 5 lists, forward the patches to
> them and unsubscribe again after this (and repeat this if there's some
> discussion regarding one of these patches).
Note that Mailman lists allow you to be subscribed without getting mail
from the list (except the monthly notice on mailman day).
Erik
--
+-- Erik Mouw -- http://www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 --
| Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:54:37AM +0100, Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 06:54:38PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I'm sometimes doing patches that cover many files, and I want to Cc the
> > patches to the developers in question.
> >
> > If after sending 10 patches I get 5 "this is a subscribers-only list"
> > mails, I'm not going to subscribe to 5 lists, forward the patches to
> > them and unsubscribe again after this (and repeat this if there's some
> > discussion regarding one of these patches).
>
> Note that Mailman lists allow you to be subscribed without getting mail
> from the list (except the monthly notice on mailman day).
Which is still totally annoying. I don't want to use some damn web (or even
email-based) interface just to send a single mail to some list.
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:54:37AM +0100, Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 06:54:38PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I'm sometimes doing patches that cover many files, and I want to Cc the
> > patches to the developers in question.
> >
> > If after sending 10 patches I get 5 "this is a subscribers-only list"
> > mails, I'm not going to subscribe to 5 lists, forward the patches to
> > them and unsubscribe again after this (and repeat this if there's some
> > discussion regarding one of these patches).
>
> Note that Mailman lists allow you to be subscribed without getting mail
> from the list (except the monthly notice on mailman day).
Which you can also turn off.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial core
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:00:57AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:54:37AM +0100, Erik Mouw wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 06:54:38PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > I'm sometimes doing patches that cover many files, and I want to Cc the
> > > patches to the developers in question.
> > >
> > > If after sending 10 patches I get 5 "this is a subscribers-only list"
> > > mails, I'm not going to subscribe to 5 lists, forward the patches to
> > > them and unsubscribe again after this (and repeat this if there's some
> > > discussion regarding one of these patches).
> >
> > Note that Mailman lists allow you to be subscribed without getting mail
> > from the list (except the monthly notice on mailman day).
>
> Which is still totally annoying. I don't want to use some damn web (or even
> email-based) interface just to send a single mail to some list.
In that case, you can personally choose not to send mail there anymore.
It's completely up to you. No one is forcing you to send email to any
address.
You may wish to have 100% open communities everywhere, but unfortunately
we live in the real world where politicians get to make laws for us, and
we have to abide by them. If this means that people have to respect
peoples rights to privacy, and inform them when their privacy may not
be assured (and not violate that right to privacy without first doing
so.)
I don't care if you personally agree with that or not. That's not what
it's about. It's about taking reasonable steps to cover ones own ass
and the communities ass to ensure survival in silly-law environments.
In such an environment, there are two options to this:
1. have a moderated mailing list with public archives where non-subscribers
are informed that their message can't be accepted because x, y, and z.
2. have an open mailing list with private archives and a method to ensure
that there are _no_ archive sites subscribed.
(2) is an impossibility, which only leaves (1).
Remember - there *are* people who use law as a method to make money.
I think that recent events with a certain company in the US prove that
point nicely.
Think about it. And let me remind you that I don't care whether you
agree or not.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial core
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:25:15AM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> In that case, you can personally choose not to send mail there anymore.
> It's completely up to you. No one is forcing you to send email to any
> address.
I don't plan to force anyone to do anything with their mailinglists.
But we shouldn't mention lists with stupid policies as maintainer contacts.
> You may wish to have 100% open communities everywhere, but unfortunately
> we live in the real world where politicians get to make laws for us, and
> we have to abide by them. If this means that people have to respect
> peoples rights to privacy, and inform them when their privacy may not
> be assured (and not violate that right to privacy without first doing
> so.)
>
> I don't care if you personally agree with that or not. That's not what
> it's about. It's about taking reasonable steps to cover ones own ass
> and the communities ass to ensure survival in silly-law environments.
Maybe you should offshore your lists to conuntries with saner laws (or
at least to less obedient people..)
Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> writes:
> In my experience, the best solution is a list policy that allows
> subscribers to post and requires moderator approval for non-members.
> This policy that is already used by several lists listed in MAINTAINERS
> is IMHO a good compromise between avoiding spam and allowing
> non-subscribers to post to the list.
Sounds great, but _every single time_ I've ever gotten one of those
"your message is awaiting moderation" messages from such a list, it's
inevitably followed a few hours/days later by a "your message has been
rejected" message. In every case, the message I sent was definitely a
no-brainer to allow, so I can only guess that either the moderation
system is broken, or the moderators are.
Are there actually any lists out there where this mechanism works properly?
As it is, it's even more annoying than an immediate rejection.
-miles
--
/\ /\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute kitty virus, please copy it into your sig so it can spread.
>
> Are there actually any lists out there where this mechanism works properly?
the dri-devel list moderators seem to get it right, I haven't put my
address in the moderator e-mail, and we still get things like Adrians
patches through to the list....
Dave.
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 06:37:01PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Sounds great, but _every single time_ I've ever gotten one of those
> "your message is awaiting moderation" messages from such a list, it's
> inevitably followed a few hours/days later by a "your message has been
> rejected" message. In every case, the message I sent was definitely a
> no-brainer to allow, so I can only guess that either the moderation
> system is broken, or the moderators are.
It's not about sanity, it's about abiding the law (the UK Data
Protection Act, in this particular case). As Russell King explained in
this thread, there are such things as real life and politicians that
make privacy laws.
On the linux-arm* lists, we make no difference in intention: if you're
not subscribed, it means you didn't agree to your messages being
publicly archived (i.e.: you didn't agree to your privacy being
violated), and to avoid legal hassles later on, we can't accept your
post.
The legal hassles I'm talking about are not a theoretical thing, there
have been successful requests from posters to have their messages
removed from other mailing lists archives in the past. Yes, I know
that's stupid, and yes, I know a mailing list maintainer can't do
anything against other people archiving his list, but the law says
otherwise.
Note however, that messages with patches sent to the linux-arm-kernel
list will get to the right person (i.e.: Russell).
Erik
linux-arm*-owner #2
--
+-- Erik Mouw -- http://www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 --
| Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:33:26AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:25:15AM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > In that case, you can personally choose not to send mail there anymore.
> > It's completely up to you. No one is forcing you to send email to any
> > address.
>
> I don't plan to force anyone to do anything with their mailinglists.
> But we shouldn't mention lists with stupid policies as maintainer contacts.
As Alan has already pointed out, there's more to the MAINTAINERS file
than just pointing out to main line kernel developers where to send
their patches.
> > I don't care if you personally agree with that or not. That's not what
> > it's about. It's about taking reasonable steps to cover ones own ass
> > and the communities ass to ensure survival in silly-law environments.
>
> Maybe you should offshore your lists to conuntries with saner laws (or
> at least to less obedient people..)
s/or at least to less obedient people/and offshore the list administrators
as well/
People seem rather unwilling to do so because it's a hell of a lot of
hastle to look after properly. The suggestion has been made in the
past and always comes to nothing.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial core
> > Sounds great, but _every single time_ I've ever gotten one of those
> > "your message is awaiting moderation" messages from such a list, it's
> > inevitably followed a few hours/days later by a "your message has been
> > rejected" message. In every case, the message I sent was definitely a
> > no-brainer to allow, so I can only guess that either the moderation
> > system is broken, or the moderators are.
>
> It's not about sanity, it's about abiding the law (the UK Data
> Protection Act, in this particular case). As Russell King explained in
> this thread, there are such things as real life and politicians that
> make privacy laws.
I've had this problem with many mailing lists not based in the UK, so
presumably that particular stupidity doesn't apply to them. However
sad the case of the arm lists, I'd like to know if there are more
basic problems involved that could explain my experience.
It sounds like it would be an excellent idea not to host lists in the
UK though...
-Miles
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:05:20PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> > It's not about sanity, it's about abiding the law (the UK Data
> > Protection Act, in this particular case). As Russell King explained in
> > this thread, there are such things as real life and politicians that
> > make privacy laws.
>
> I've had this problem with many mailing lists not based in the UK, so
> presumably that particular stupidity doesn't apply to them. However
> sad the case of the arm lists, I'd like to know if there are more
> basic problems involved that could explain my experience.
The Data Protection Act is the UK implementation of a European Union
directive. All EU member states (should) have similar laws.
> It sounds like it would be an excellent idea not to host lists in the
> UK though...
s/UK/EU/. Like Russell already said: so far nobody volunteered to host
all EU lists plus their administrators off shore, so we have to live
with it.
Erik
--
+-- Erik Mouw -- http://www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 --
| Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 06:25:33PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 06:54:38PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 05:21:55PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > > If we must, I guess it's fine, but I expect *you* to provide the support
> > > to people to people who don't know where to go for it if *you* remove this.
> >
> > I'm sometimes doing patches that cover many files, and I want to Cc the
> > patches to the developers in question.
> >
> > If after sending 10 patches I get 5 "this is a subscribers-only list"
> > mails, I'm not going to subscribe to 5 lists, forward the patches to
> > them and unsubscribe again after this (and repeat this if there's some
> > discussion regarding one of these patches).
> >
> > In my experience, the best solution is a list policy that allows
> > subscribers to post and requires moderator approval for non-members.
> > This policy that is already used by several lists listed in MAINTAINERS
> > is IMHO a good compromise between avoiding spam and allowing
> > non-subscribers to post to the list.
>
> Well, that's precisely what happens with these lists - your post ends
> up in the moderator approval queue. They do generally find their way
> from there into the appropriate peoples mailboxes (iow, mine).
OK, sorry, my comment was wrong.
I confused moderated with subscribers-only .
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 09:33 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:25:15AM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > In that case, you can personally choose not to send mail there anymore.
> > It's completely up to you. No one is forcing you to send email to any
> > address.
>
> I don't plan to force anyone to do anything with their mailinglists.
> But we shouldn't mention lists with stupid policies as maintainer contacts.
Agreed. Besides, there are _very_ effective solutions to the spam
problem. man spamassassin.
Lee
On Maw, 2005-01-04 at 13:05, Miles Bader wrote:
> It sounds like it would be an excellent idea not to host lists in the
> UK though...
Its an EU wide thing, and various other countries (and I believe some US
states).
On Maw, 2005-01-04 at 09:33, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Maybe you should offshore your lists to conuntries with saner laws (or
> at least to less obedient people..)
The european union data protection law prohibits such offshoring
On Maw, 2005-01-04 at 21:13, Lee Revell wrote:
> Agreed. Besides, there are _very_ effective solutions to the spam
> problem. man spamassassin.
You realise current generation spam generator tools actually grab and
build spamassassin and then feed the spam through it adjusting it until
it passes ?
Please don't tell mailing list admins how to run lists.
On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 00:07 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Maw, 2005-01-04 at 21:13, Lee Revell wrote:
> > Agreed. Besides, there are _very_ effective solutions to the spam
> > problem. man spamassassin.
>
> You realise current generation spam generator tools actually grab and
> build spamassassin and then feed the spam through it adjusting it until
> it passes ?
>
> Please don't tell mailing list admins how to run lists.
>
Apologies for the offtopic post.
Lee
>>>>> "Russell" == Russell King <[email protected]> writes:
Russell> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:33:26AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig
Russell> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:25:15AM +0000, Russell King wrote: > In
>> that case, you can personally choose not to send mail there
>> anymore. > It's completely up to you. No one is forcing you to
>> send email to any > address.
>>
>> I don't plan to force anyone to do anything with their
>> mailinglists. But we shouldn't mention lists with stupid policies
>> as maintainer contacts.
Russell> As Alan has already pointed out, there's more to the
Russell> MAINTAINERS file than just pointing out to main line kernel
Russell> developers where to send their patches.
Maybe it's time to have an additional entry in MAINTAINERS then -
having fscked up lists listed in there equal to sane ones seems
completely inappropriate. Requiring broken lists to marked as 'this
list is b0rked, use it at your own leisure'. That would save users and
developers from having to deal with the side effects of these fscked
up lists.
Using your own argument, I don't care why a list is fscked, the fact
is it's fscked and I don't want to have to waste my time on it.
Cheers,
Jes
On Mer, 2005-01-05 at 09:20, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >>>>> "Russell" == Russell King <[email protected]> writes:
> Maybe it's time to have an additional entry in MAINTAINERS then -
> having fscked up lists listed in there equal to sane ones seems
> completely inappropriate.
We do that for individuals whether they are sane or complete loons 8)
I'm in favour of it letting you see if the list is subscription based.
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:04:17PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mer, 2005-01-05 at 09:20, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > >>>>> "Russell" == Russell King <[email protected]> writes:
> > Maybe it's time to have an additional entry in MAINTAINERS then -
> > having fscked up lists listed in there equal to sane ones seems
> > completely inappropriate.
>
> We do that for individuals whether they are sane or complete loons 8)
>
> I'm in favour of it letting you see if the list is subscription based.
As am I. It's the "all lists must be open" fundamentalist brigade who
are making a mountain out of this mole hill.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial core
Hi!
> > Sounds great, but _every single time_ I've ever gotten one of those
> > "your message is awaiting moderation" messages from such a list, it's
> > inevitably followed a few hours/days later by a "your message has been
> > rejected" message. In every case, the message I sent was definitely a
> > no-brainer to allow, so I can only guess that either the moderation
> > system is broken, or the moderators are.
>
> It's not about sanity, it's about abiding the law (the UK Data
> Protection Act, in this particular case). As Russell King explained in
> this thread, there are such things as real life and politicians that
> make privacy laws.
>
> On the linux-arm* lists, we make no difference in intention: if you're
> not subscribed, it means you didn't agree to your messages being
> publicly archived (i.e.: you didn't agree to your privacy being
> violated), and to avoid legal hassles later on, we can't accept your
> post.
>
> The legal hassles I'm talking about are not a theoretical thing, there
> have been successful requests from posters to have their messages
> removed from other mailing lists archives in the past. Yes, I know
> that's stupid, and yes, I know a mailing list maintainer can't do
> anything against other people archiving his list, but the law says
> otherwise.
What about allowing all messages with X-Okay-to-archive: yes header
even without subscription?
Pavel
--
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!