[TriLUG] 9kb message limit on TriLUG mailman server

matt at noway2.thruhere.net matt at noway2.thruhere.net
Sun Dec 23 06:30:35 EST 2012


>> Resending (truncated)... * (Can someone please increase
>> the ridiculously tiny message size limit for this list?)*
>
>
> The 9kB limit was determined a few years ago by looking through a huge
> history of messages posted to our mailing lists.
>
> Is it worth it?  That's up for debate.  Our main mailing list has over 700
> recipients.  I'd rather lean towards early filtering than letting all 700
> readers slog through a series of "reply to digest" or "me too" posts.
>
> Personally, I feel like 9kB is too small, too.  I find that I have to
> approve a lot of posts between 9kB and maybe 15kB.
I agree that 9K is a bit too small.  I have been nailed by it on a couple
of instances.  The ones that stand out in my memory are ones that included
technical information, such as techniques to use while investigating a
probable intrusion/compromise.

I would ask, how often do with think the 9k limit saves us from
distribution of abusive behavior?

As far as "slogging through series of reply digests", I am not convinced
that this would be the case.  When I am catching up on a long discussion
thread, I find I can read the updated portion while ignoring the part with
'>' by it and only have to read one or two, in which case the long replies
are helpful, to get the whole context.

Since we've had several complaints about it being too low, but to the best
of my knowledge no complaints that messages are too big, I would suggest
that we up it a bit and see what happens but I doubt that we will notice
any negative effects.




More information about the TriLUG mailing list