> On Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 10:35 , Tom Chappell wrote:
>
>> META:-- FIVE-POSTS-A-DAY-LIMIT
>> Because of that five-a-day limit, sometimes I don't reply; and,
>> sometimes,
>> I reply directly to the person who posted, instead of to the list.
>> Henrik says he is considering relaxing or eliminating the
>> five-posts-a-day-limit. I think, if his software were up to it, a
>> sensible limit would be something like one-or-two replies per thread or
>> per thread/contributor combination per two- or four- or eight-hours.
> [snip]
>> Obviously a troll or twit could get around the limit by screwing with the
>> subject heading or by deliberately posting replies to the wrong thread;
>
> Yes, yes. But when is a thread not a thread? Anyone who has been on this
> list for some time will know that subject headers frequently do not get
> changed even when the thread has move way off the original topic. It has
> not been uncommon to find the contents of a mail bears no relation to the
> subject heading.
>
> On the other hand, a subject heading may get changed because of slight
> change of emphasis in a thread or a thread will go off in two quite
> legitimate directions. Who decides what is actually pertinent to a thread
> and what is not? This IMO is likely to be a source of argument and will
> put an unfair burden on Henrik.
>
> The five posts per day limit was introduced at the same time as the 100
> posts per day limit. Without a limit on number of posts per person, two or
> three people could have monopolized the list, giving no opportunity for
> others to be heard.
>
> Why was the 100 per day limit introduced (I think it is actually 99)?
>
> Well quite a few of us, I suspect, remember the old days of heavy traffic.
> We would open up our mail box to find some 200 or more mails waiting the
> next day! It was quite impossible for many of us to keep up with the
> volume of traffic; so a lot of mails were skimmed or even trashed unread
> (if the thread did not seem particularly interesting). This was very
> unsatisfactory.
>
> Also every so often the volume was simply too much for the server at Brown
> to handle and the list got locked, so *no one* could post for a day or two
> till John unlocked the list and opened the floodgates.
>
> The new ruling of 100 per day & five per person per day has improved
> things immensely IMHO. I think _very serious_ thought ought to be given
> before making any further change.
>
> Ray
> ===============================================
>
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
> ray.brown@freeuk.com
> ===============================================
> "A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
> interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760
>