META: list holding, possible per-user limit

Andreas Johansson scripsit:

> PS Would it be possible to exempt "OT:", "THEORY:", "USAGE:", and
> "CHAT:" messages from the daily limit? Those having trouble with the
> list traffic likely are not reading them anyway, and so shouldn't be
> troubled by a hike in them, and we'd all see fewer instances of the
> list being held.
Unfortunately, the only thing I can do is to change the actual numerical
value of the limit (currently 99).  I can't exempt some messages and
control others, nor can I set the list to automatically restart itself.

The only other thing I can do, which is not currently done, is to set
a second limit, the per-user limit.  If I do that, the list will reject
(not merely hold) any messages from a given user that are over the limit.
This will affect all users equally except me.  If anyone thinks I ought
to impose this feature, please let me know PRIVATELY at either
cowan@ccil.org or jcowan@reutershealth.com (they go to the same place).

> Speaking of which, people are speaking of the limit as 100 msg/day,
> but the "List is held" messages say the limit is 99. Are people simply
> mistaken, or does the server number messages 0-99 rather than 1-100?
It numbers them 1-99 and then holds.

John Cowan, Lord of the Instrumentality of Conlang

--
John Cowan  jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com
"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarves."
        --Murray Gell-Mann