[U-Boot] REJECT: Too many recipients to the message

[T Ziomek]

On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 10:51:02PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear T Ziomek,
> 
> In message <20090601203258.GG8553 at email.mot.com> you wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, but how one's MUA / mail client handles them may *not* be identi-
> > cal.
> > 
> > Quite a few people configure their MUA to prioritize messages based on
> > whether they are on the To: list, CC:, BCC:, or none of the above (i.e.
> > by list membership).
> 
> I read this as a pro for long cc: lists.

Yes.

> > > What is the difference whether you receive one or two identical copies
> > > of a message?
> > 
> > It's a hassle and distraction to deal with duplicates.
> 
> This however is a clear con, isn't it?

To me, yes.  But I'm not active enough on any maillists to be heavily
impacted by it, and I've just dealt with it when it does occur.

I'd assume more active list participants have ways of dealing with that,
but they can answer that better than I.

> > > > How about reconfiguring the list software instead?
> > > 
> > > I see no reason for that yet.

I see no reason, at least none articulated as of yet, for the current
configuration.

> > +1 for not restricting the # of addressees absent a reason other than
> > "some of them are often redundant".
> 
> We neever before had any such problems. Currently  these  are  caused
> because  some  messages have 5 (or more) samsung.com addresses listed
> on Cc:; for example,  "[PATCH]  The  omap3  L2  cache  enable/disable
> function to omap3 dependent code" has 6 such addresses on Cc:

And what problem does that cause?

> I doubt that this is really  necessary.

"Necessary" is in the eye of the beholder here.  And IMHO the presump-
tion should be that the sender of an email is addressing it properly.
Absent either (a) clear, significant abuse of emails' recipients or (b)
a measurable and significant impact on the list provider [1], let people
CC who they consider appropriate and let the list server send emails to
whomever it is asked to send emails to.

[1]  E.g. exceeding bandwidth quotas, mail delivery being delayed for
hours, etc.

I can understand the hassle you've had manually approving msgs with many
recipients.  But the appropriate solution here is to remove the artifi-
cial limit that causes you to be involved in the first place.

> In  this  specific  case,  a
> company-internal   distribution   list   would   probably   be   more
> appropriate.

I don't understand what you envision here, or what it would accomplish.

-- 
A: Because it breaks the logical        |
    flow of the message.                |   Email to user 'CTZ001'
                                        |             at 'email.mot.com'
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?     |