2:02 p.m.
The Infrastructure team reports that we have 220 held messages in the
Docs queue as of today. If no one is moderating that queue regularly,
then in fairness it should be set to reject posts from non-members so
we are not setting wrong expectations. Also, the longer that queue
gets the more it can potentially slow down mailman (directory length).
I already regularly check and prune three other queues regularly. I
believe this issue has come up before and since we're up against the
same issue, I'd recommend setting the list to reject by default,
optionally with a customized, more polite message attached.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
2:31 p.m.
My only concern is that it might cut down on the ability of other
Fedora project contributors to communicate with the Docs team. If
that's not what most of the messages are, I'm not opposed to rejecting
by default. The other solution is to have more moderators that can
tend to these kinds of things. I'd be happy to do that if we decide
to go that route.
--
Ben Cotton
2:45 p.m.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The Infrastructure team reports that we have 220 held messages in
the
Docs queue as of today. If no one is moderating that queue regularly,
then in fairness it should be set to reject posts from non-members so
we are not setting wrong expectations. Also, the longer that queue
gets the more it can potentially slow down mailman (directory length).
I already regularly check and prune three other queues regularly. I
believe this issue has come up before and since we're up against the
same issue, I'd recommend setting the list to reject by default,
optionally with a customized, more polite message attached.
+1 for default reject.
I noted Ben's concern, but since no one is manning the queue to begin,
with they are currently unable to communicate with us via the mailing
list sans a subscription.
4:26 p.m.
On Thu 20 May 2010 12:45:23 pm David Nalley wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Paul W. Frields
<stickster(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> The Infrastructure team reports that we have 220 held messages
in the
> Docs queue as of today. If no one is moderating that queue regularly,
> then in fairness it should be set to reject posts from non-members so
> we are not setting wrong expectations. Also, the longer that queue
> gets the more it can potentially slow down mailman (directory length).
>
> I already regularly check and prune three other queues regularly. I
> believe this issue has come up before and since we're up against the
> same issue, I'd recommend setting the list to reject by default,
> optionally with a customized, more polite message attached.
+1 for default reject.
I noted Ben's concern, but since no one is manning the queue to begin,
with they are currently unable to communicate with us via the mailing
list sans a subscription.
I don't do much in docs-land (nothing outside of marketing+docs-lands),
but I can clean out a mailing list queue once a week, or more often if
necessary. I've seen lots of other sub-projects send little tidbits here
and there and it would be unfortunate for this to be inhibited by
requiring someone sign up for Yet Another Mailing List. I could probably
also pick up any others if you need me to, Paul.
Ryan
--
Ryan Rix
== http://hackersramblings.wordpress.com | http://rix.si/ ==
3:36 p.m.
I am -1 to default reject. It would reduce the capability for
nonmembers to email the docs list. I'll volunteer to help with the
queue if you want.
Nick
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2010, at 2:02 PM, "Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
The Infrastructure team reports that we have 220 held messages in
the
Docs queue as of today. If no one is moderating that queue regularly,
then in fairness it should be set to reject posts from non-members so
we are not setting wrong expectations. Also, the longer that queue
gets the more it can potentially slow down mailman (directory length).
I already regularly check and prune three other queues regularly. I
believe this issue has come up before and since we're up against the
same issue, I'd recommend setting the list to reject by default,
optionally with a customized, more polite message attached.
--
Paul W. Frields http://
paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
--
docs mailing list
docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs
3:38 p.m.
Well maybe I'm actually -0.5. I don't like the idea, it's annoying
when you send an email and then forget to set it as from the email you
are subscribed with, plus, there might be other people that want to
email the docs list.
I wonder how many of the 200 or so emails are spam and how many are
real? Plus, how many emails do we manually approve through now?
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Nick Bebout <nick(a)bebout.net> wrote:
I am -1 to default reject. It would reduce the capability for
nonmembers to email the docs list. I'll volunteer to help with the
queue if you want.
Nick
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2010, at 2:02 PM, "Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> The Infrastructure team reports that we have 220 held messages in the
> Docs queue as of today. If no one is moderating that queue
> regularly,
> then in fairness it should be set to reject posts from non-members so
> we are not setting wrong expectations. Also, the longer that queue
> gets the more it can potentially slow down mailman (directory
> length).
>
> I already regularly check and prune three other queues regularly. I
> believe this issue has come up before and since we're up against the
> same issue, I'd recommend setting the list to reject by default,
> optionally with a customized, more polite message attached.
>
> --
> Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
> gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
> http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
> Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
> --
> docs mailing list
> docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs
4:26 p.m.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 03:38:53PM -0500, Nick Bebout wrote:
Well maybe I'm actually -0.5. I don't like the idea, it's
annoying
when you send an email and then forget to set it as from the email you
are subscribed with, plus, there might be other people that want to
email the docs list.
I wonder how many of the 200 or so emails are spam and how many are
real? Plus, how many emails do we manually approve through now?
Over the years since I have been an admin (2005?) I have cleared the
queue a number of times. I clear it by using browser page search on
"Subject" and find that I can visually scan a few hundred subjects and
pull the ham from the spam.
I reckon that each pass of ~200 message queue yields 4 potentially
legitimate messages - actual people attempting to communicate. There
are an equal number of e.g. twitter.com invites when people let
programs at their address book. The rest are spam. 2% ham, 3% oops,
and 95% spam.
When I come across someone who is either on the list or should be on
the autorecipient list, I use the queue interface to add them to the
accept list. For example, the other day Noriko sent from
noriko(a)redhat.com, so I passed the message and clicked to add this
alias to the accept list.
I'm an admin on so many lists that I don't let the queue emails land
in my inbox any longer, so I don't scan them for details. If someone
jumps on the queue once a week, it should work.
- Karsten
--
name: Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Community Gardener
team: Red Hat Community Architecture
uri: http://TheOpenSourceWay.org/wiki
gpg: AD0E0C41
4:32 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 05/20/2010 03:02 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
The Infrastructure team reports that we have 220 held messages in
the
Docs queue as of today. If no one is moderating that queue regularly,
then in fairness it should be set to reject posts from non-members so
we are not setting wrong expectations. Also, the longer that queue
gets the more it can potentially slow down mailman (directory length).
I already regularly check and prune three other queues regularly. I
believe this issue has come up before and since we're up against the
same issue, I'd recommend setting the list to reject by default,
optionally with a customized, more polite message attached.
Yeah, I've been uber slack on keeping up with the message queue. My
thought is to just reject the messages with a message stating how to
sign up for the list. It doesn't make any sense to send a message to a
list where you wouldn't know if anyone responded to your message because
you aren't subscribed!
- --Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=Zx4X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
6:20 p.m.
Hi All,
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:01 PM, John J. McDonough <wb8rcr(a)arrl.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 17:32 -0400, Eric "Sparks"
Christensen wrote:
> Yeah, I've been uber slack on keeping up with the message queue.
Heck, I didn't even know there was a queue. I guess it should have been
obvious, but it never occurred to me.
--McD
I am mostly a lurker on this list, but thought I could chime in here.
There should be an option in the administrative interface that says,
"Discard held messages older than this number of days. Use 0 for no
automatic discarding." You could set that option to 3 or 5 days, which
would allow list admins enough time to approve legitimate messages, but
would also allow spam messages to just be deleted without any further
interaction.
To check for legit messages, I normally get an email summary that says,
"these messages are pending . . . " (or something similar), and I
occasionally skim through it to see if there is anything that looks legit.
If there is, I approve it. If not, I can just delete the summary email.
I've taken that approach with a medium-low traffic list that I help
administer, and it has worked well.
Jim
8:05 p.m.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:01 PM, John J. McDonough <wb8rcr(a)arrl.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 17:32 -0400, Eric "Sparks"
Christensen wrote:
> Yeah, I've been uber slack on keeping up with the message queue.
Heck, I didn't even know there was a queue. I guess it should have been
obvious, but it never occurred to me.
I hate to admit it - but I had forgotten about it. I kinda remember now
that quaid
used to grumble out forgetting it regularly...
I can probably look in once a week or so - and if a couple others of us did
as well, maybe we can keep it more open...
-Susan
--
Susan Lauber, (RHCX, RHCA, RHCSS)
Lauber System Solutions, Inc.
http://www.laubersolutions.com
gpg: 15AC F794 A3D9 64D1 D9CE 4C26 EFC3 11C2 BFA1 0974
8:34 a.m.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 09:05:47PM -0400, Susan Lauber wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:01 PM, John J. McDonough
<[1]wb8rcr(a)arrl.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 17:32 -0400, Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
> Yeah, I've been uber slack on keeping up with the message queue.
Heck, I didn't even know there was a queue. I guess it should have been
obvious, but it never occurred to me.
I hate to admit it - but I had forgotten about it. I kinda remember now
that quaid used to grumble out forgetting it regularly...
I can probably look in once a week or so - and if a couple others of us
did as well, maybe we can keep it more open...
The list does send out notifications to people listed as
administrators. As of a few minutes ago, that list included Dimitris
Glezos, me, Karsten, Eric, and Jared Smith.
Dimitris is hardly ever available because he's very busy as CEO of
Indifex now. I'm going to proactively take the step of removing him,
and I've now added Ryan, Susan, and Nick to the list admins, since
they indicated they could help out. I'll send all of the admins the
new password for the list.
There is also an auto-discard function which can be set if desired, as
Jim noted, but if people keep up with the queue we shouldn't need it.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
8:56 a.m.
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 09:34:49AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 09:05:47PM -0400, Susan Lauber wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:01 PM, John J. McDonough <[1]wb8rcr(a)arrl.net>
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 17:32 -0400, Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I've been uber slack on keeping up with the message queue.
>
> Heck, I didn't even know there was a queue. I guess it should have been
> obvious, but it never occurred to me.
>
> I hate to admit it - but I had forgotten about it. I kinda remember now
> that quaid used to grumble out forgetting it regularly...
> I can probably look in once a week or so - and if a couple others of us
> did as well, maybe we can keep it more open...
The list does send out notifications to people listed as
administrators. As of a few minutes ago, that list included Dimitris
Glezos, me, Karsten, Eric, and Jared Smith.
Dimitris is hardly ever available because he's very busy as CEO of
Indifex now. I'm going to proactively take the step of removing him,
and I've now added Ryan, Susan, and Nick to the list admins, since
they indicated they could help out. I'll send all of the admins the
new password for the list.
There is also an auto-discard function which can be set if desired, as
Jim noted, but if people keep up with the queue we shouldn't need it.
I added Ben as well, whom I missed in my additions. Thanks to all of
you for volunteering!
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
1:44 p.m.
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 09:56:15AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 09:34:49AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> Dimitris is hardly ever available because he's very busy as CEO of
> Indifex now. I'm going to proactively take the step of removing him,
> and I've now added Ryan, Susan, and Nick to the list admins, since
> they indicated they could help out. I'll send all of the admins the
> new password for the list.
If replying to oneself on a list is frowned upon, doing it twice is
probably a shooting offense.
I wanted to make the above clearer. I removed Dimitris because I know
he's too busy to maintain our queue, and shouldn't be expected to do
so. In my previous jobs, as a routine measure when removing someone
from an access list, we also would change the authorization factors
(in this case the passphrase). It was just by habit, and it hadn't
occurred to me that anyone would think the point was to shut Dimitris
out of administration of our list. It wasn't. Hopefully that didn't
occur to most of you reading, either. :-)
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
11:48 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 05/21/2010 02:44 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
It was just by habit, and it hadn't
occurred to me that anyone would think the point was to shut Dimitris
out of administration of our list. It wasn't. Hopefully that didn't
occur to most of you reading, either. :-)
Didn't occur to me at all! :)
- --Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJL+VxgAAoJEDbiLlqcYamxPm4P/1C0zU6BL3oMcPnBM+b5EoDd
QXOvdunFhD2sry7gVTXUbs+CTX2IHtFqVazjRDxFnjAB92rNlqLwFRT0tIlALcVo
eI7UKm7ap/pi50dped7zlDBH4HQ5Ax2g7IrZxSk2tJ9oH3ijFVkdOFeC5W57rb14
hkZZs4zMqMKEVoFQvoVTCVZV4/R/+/9UJqosgQdilF+gKEZQIOno0EOHJQNlYkvn
ZXJnBW74SnA+xCspr81QXJYayxe6M1yoj3VQL5AqCcJ+ic4o/UeyMyMyp/QLw7Qo
BI80dpOE25TTA5L9lVav+04DVDTO66zjWlF5x3QlaP6HWQRtB7KsKFPzJOMU315N
XVlGkJyD191x7Wvg4kkomYeUiQKh7ZglpbR7dY+ODhdxCCSBgSJPkcCI9e1bTnjE
OTeUAHz0Qh2hGOGTYeYZXT4Y2juDmTF3Rd3kMHlxBBkEiztFhEEKNmgmu++tfrRh
mDNt5gZXkGk4jz8XU72avl6sHfnt14k4MEb3d71vnw46orTc7cwzp0lw1fiNm/Ga
44pGv0N7+BjPNPWsG2HJEEy5XL5FnYlMyBSv2V9BgfGEb+uPgMcP/GrkFEXT3nnE
FxlJ06IqXf9Kwjma/idRiaU36UdIDFj4pLp43OnAq12aPNDGXRT4dgvl8dkt09PA
plsSkhsWOPoDp4OQMND/
=zjoN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
5086
days inactive
5089
days old
14 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Ben Cotton -
David Nalley -
Eric Christensen -
Jim Campbell -
John J. McDonough -
Karsten Wade -
Nick Bebout -
Paul W. Frields -
Ryan Rix -
Susan Lauber