Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:20:06 -0600
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Andrew Buehler <abuehler.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: stern@rowland.harvard.edu, oliver.pntr@gmail.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, greg@kroah.com,
       linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
       Joseph Fannin <jfannin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: USB regression (and other failures) in 2.6.2[45]*
Message-Id: <20080217012006.3757dfae.pj@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <47B71372.5050804@gmail.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0802161013190.3769-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
	<47B71372.5050804@gmail.com>
Organization: SGI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2137
Lines: 51

Andrew wrote:
> (Note: I consider it blatantly incorrect to send a reply both to a
> mailing list and directly to the address of someone who is subscribed to
> that list

Regardless of how you consider it, that is how responding to these big
lists -must- work.

There is no practical way for respondents to know, without spending at
a minimum several minutes of their time per reply, whether or not the
explicit receipients of a message are or are not also on one or more of
the receiving lists.

Do you really expect, Andrew, that I should examine the membership lists
of each of linux-scsi, linux-usb and linux-kernel (if they are even open
to the public) to see if you're subscribed to them, before responding to
a message addressed such as this?

As subscribers and submitters to such lists, we just have to learn to
deal with this reality.  For example, I receive an average of a 100
messages per hour on this email address, -after- my employers spam
filters have knocked off over 90% of the incoming.

May I recommend you become an expert in procmail?  That or speed
reading (and speed ignoring ;).

In a separate reply to this message, Alan Stern wrote:
> Everyone has his own taste.

This is not a matter of taste on these big lists.  There is no other
practical alternative.  Most of the burden of ultimate filtering must
be shifted to the recipients, and the senders asked only that they
err on the side of including every individual list or person already
on the address lists.

Joseph Fannin also replied:
> another free mail service which isn't so broken,

I'd recommend fastmail.fm as one of the least broken, most tech savvy
mail services.  I believe that their free side includes IMAP, though
not POP support.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/