Subject: [lemonade] Too Many Recipients

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:41:52 -0400

As you may have figured out from my less-than-ideal MUA, I've been away for
a week.

I will be commenting on the substance of some of the discussions that have
been going on in my absence.  However, I did want to raise one issue.  There
were a number of messages held in the spam bucket that the spam system held
because the message had too many recipients.

PLEASE, if you do a Reply-All in your MUA, try to prune the address list to
those you REALLY want to get the message in their inbox.  If A replies to B
who replies to C, when D replies, we end up with a To: list with A, B, C, D,
and lemonade (if not other lists, too).  If you are D, replying with a
comment directed at C, remember to trim off A and B.  They are list
subscribers, so they will see the message!

Thanks.

--
Humble Chair and List Lackey, Eric

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:57:42 -0700 (PDT)

> subscribers, so they will see the message!

How about we fix the mailing list software to behave competently instead?
This sort of recipient limit restriction is an exceptionally poor choice
of filtering mechanism. 

				Ned

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:02:25 -0700 (PDT)

+1

> This sort of recipient limit restriction is an exceptionally poor choice

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:46:00 +0200

Eric Burger writes:
> I will be commenting on the substance of some of the discussions that 
> have been going on in my absence. However, I did want to raise one 
> issue. There were a number of messages held in the spam bucket that 
> the spam system held because the message had too many recipients.

Hi Eric,

so far, how many of the messages with 5-10 recipients have been spam? 
11-50? 50 or more?

Depending on the answers, I suggest raising the limit to 10, 50 or infinity.

Arnt

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:02:10 -0700 (PDT)

> so far, how many of the messages with 5-10 recipients have been spam?

I don't see how this is relevant. The relevant question is whether or not
there's a significant amount of spam that is only caught because the number of
recipients limit was exceeded. The limit only makes sense if this number (which
may or may not be measurable in a given setup) is nonnegligable, and given the
annoyance factor quite possibly not even then.

I run several IETF lists, and the vast majority of the very large number of
spam messages these lists receive only have a single recipient address in the
message headers. If anything the presence of small number of additional
recippients seems correlated with non-spam, not spam. I don't implement a
number of recipients limit, and (a) The number of spams that make it through to
the list is quite small and (b) Those that do are not ones loaded with
additional recipient addresses. 

				Ned

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:50:53 +0300

>Depending on the answers, I suggest raising the limit to 10, 
++support