linux-kernel - Re: linux-arm-kernel useless for development (was Re: Your message to Linux-arm-kernel awaits moderator approval)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090806140451.0ef85619@nij0285>
Date:	Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:04:51 +0200
From:	Erik Mouw <mouw@...linux.org>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: linux-arm-kernel useless for development (was Re: Your message
 to Linux-arm-kernel awaits moderator approval)

On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 13:02:47 +0200
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:

> On Thu 2009-08-06 11:44:21, Russell King wrote:
> 
> > It appears the answer to that is no.  People are free to subscribe
> > to the one on vger, where they won't have to "put up" with me.
> > However, it seems that people much prefer to subscribe to my lists,
> > because that seems to be where the expertise is.
> > 
> > Moreover,
> > 
> > (a) when ever you have a problem, you go shouting and making public
> > accusations without trying first to resolve the problem in private.
> 
> When I tried asking in private, I was told to stop complaining or
> loose my mailing list subscription. I'd prefer not to make that
> mistake again.

I can't comment on that one. I have to admit I have been busy (both
private and at work) lately, so I haven't been able to spend as much
time on list maintenance as I would like to.

> 
> > (c) you really don't understand that "held for moderation" is *not*
> > rejection, but merely a case of mailman spotting something it
> > doesn't like and letting a *human* deal with it rather than
> > out-right rejecting it.
> 
> For lakml, held for moderation _does_ mean it will return with
> "posting rejected: no reason given" in few days. I have never seen any
> other result, and have got perfectly reasonable messages rejected with
> "no reason". So no, I do not believe there's cooperative human being
> moderating lakml.

That's not true. For every message I reject I always explain the
reason. Most of the time it is "Please subcribe before you're allowed to
post".

> > I wonder, do you even know what happened to the message you're
> > whinging about?  Would you prefer that your message was silently
> > dropped into /dev/null instead of having a chance of the issue
> > being resolved?  It strikes me that _that_ would be a better
> > solution than all your whinging.
> 
> So... your solution to broken mailing list is to silence everyone who
> complains?

No, if you asked us in private, it would already be solved. I just
increased the max_num_recipients from the default 15 to 30. That should
solve your problem.


Regards,

Erik

-- 
Erik Mouw -- mouw@...linux.org
GPG key fingerprint: D6AC 7F15 A26E C5C4 62E0  4A58 FCF9 551C 9B48 B68D

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)