<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#CCCCCC">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/4/19 12:37 PM, Rick Moen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20190604193757.GY5228@linuxmafia.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Just a data point:
Quoting Bobbie Sellers (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com">bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com</a>):
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Then I had to do something else and nearly forgot to send it
at all but came back in the evening and misaddressed the notes and sent
them to another mailing list that is more tolerant of images.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
The _default_ per-posting size limit in GNU Mailman is _40K_.
(As a reminder, your twice-repeated post got held for listadmin review
because you had attached a 200kB photo to it, bloating it way over this
mailing list's size limit.)</pre>
</blockquote>
Yes I recall the incident much I might wish to not recall it.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20190604193757.GY5228@linuxmafia.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
So, lucky you, that you were able to force-send it out to all the
subscribers of some other mailing list -- and, by the way, _which_ other
mailing list is it where 100% of the subscribers are fine with having
force-sent to them a photo of an SF-LUG meeting? Hmm? I'd really like
to know.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
It is not a topic of any discussion but we have rather high
limits on that list.<br>
One or more of the administrators of that list are on fairly good
terms with me<br>
and enjoy what I have to say even about Linux and the SF-LUG. I
have not<br>
been able to get the few Linux users in the groups to attend a
meeting yet<br>
because they are busy people. One member though is in regular
attendance<br>
at our meetings.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20190604193757.GY5228@linuxmafia.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
(Above would be typical of the salient questions I ask SF-LUG principals
here, questions that then consistently get ignored, because evidently
I'm considered your unpaid butler who is to be ignored whenever deemed a
nuisance.)
That aside, I think you'll find that very few mailing lists hike up the
size limit. Because, and this is the main point, going out of one's way
to hike up the limits, just so that someone can blitz hundreds of people
and the server's bandwidth and storage, is seldom done.
And, speaking of that, do I correctly infer that you elected to ignore
and not even acknowledge my suggestion of using a free image-hosting
service like Shutterfly and posting URLs rather than force-sending
binary attachments to hundreds of mailing list subscribers? So, once
again, the 'ignore Rick' gambit, right?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Frankly I have not ignored your suggestion but have not had time
or energy to<br>
attend to it with the dispatch it deserves. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20190604193757.GY5228@linuxmafia.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
And you think instead telling me how thankful you are is a relevant reply?</pre>
</blockquote>
No I think though that it is acknowledgement of your key role in
maintaining<br>
communications with the member of our and other users groups.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20190604193757.GY5228@linuxmafia.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
The other thing is: You might wonder why the SF-LUG mailing list
administrator hadn't gotten around to noticing your twice-attempted
oversized posting in the Mailman administrative queue. As it happens,
_so do I_.
('Eh?', I imagine hearing you say. I will explain, then.)
When I agreed to help SF-LUG out in 2005 by giving it temporary hosting
on my server's Mailman installtion, I stressed to Jim Stockford that
SF-LUG itself needed to handle listadmin matters, not me. I had and
have quite enough on my plate. Since I was coordinating this with Jim,
I said that by default he was elected. Jim wrote a lot of words about
how he didn't consider himself a 'leader' of SF-LUG, but I said, 'Gosh,
sorry but that doesn't change the fact that a mailing list needs a
listadmin, and you so far are the Head Cheese whether you like it or
not, so, unless you find some other credible person to be listadmin
you're it.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Jim was out of town this weekend.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20190604193757.GY5228@linuxmafia.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
So, that's what we went with, but, repeatedly over the past 14 years,
it turned out that Jim has consistently ust not done that job. I
kept having problems escalated to me that the listadmin should have
noticed and addressed, but Jim kept saying he had no knowledge, which
means he was either ignoring Mailman's notices or he / his ISP / his
software was blocking the notices.
Therefore, with a small sigh, I added my address to Jim's on the
listadmin roster -- so that the mailing list would not be completely
rudderless.
I hadn't yet gotten around to looking at the SF-LUG mailing list admin
queue -- and you _could_ have escalated to the guy who's _supposed_ to be
the listadmin (Jim Stockford) but hasn't bothered to do the job at any
time (AFAIK) over the past 14 years. But instead you escalated to me,
the guy who was _not_ supposed to need to have that job. Et voila.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I might have asked Jim but he was away untll some time on
Monday evening<br>
I presume. In the future I will try to keep from assuming that the
most knowledgeable<br>
person about the list is the one to approach with my trifling
problems.<br>
<br>
bliss<br>
</body>
</html>