disallowing too-long messages

disallowing too-long messages

[Mark Galassi]

One of my GSL maintainers wrote this and it seems reasonable: it would
suck if someone were to inadvertently post a 5meg "make check" output.

Is it possible with our ezlm s/w?

------- Start of forwarded message -------
Message-Id: <m12oDQQ-000IWUC@localhost>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 23:51:54 +0100 (BST)
From: Brian Gough <bjg@network-theory.co.uk>
To: Mark Galassi <rosalia@lanl.gov>
Subject: mailing list and release

I think we will be ready to make a new release in the next few days.
Jerry is just fixing one last bug that is preventing "make check" from
working.

Can you find out if we can put a limit on the size of messages
accepted by the mailing list, say 100k max.  The new "make check"
output is HUMUNGOUS (over 5 megabytes) -- so if someone sends it to
the list now it would be a big problem!

Thanks.

------- End of forwarded message -------

disallowing too-long messages

[Mark Galassi]

One of my GSL maintainers wrote this and it seems reasonable: it would
suck if someone were to inadvertently post a 5meg "make check" output.

Is it possible with our ezlm s/w?

------- Start of forwarded message -------
Message-Id: <m12oDQQ-000IWUC@localhost>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 23:51:54 +0100 (BST)
From: Brian Gough <bjg@network-theory.co.uk>
To: Mark Galassi <rosalia@lanl.gov>
Subject: mailing list and release

I think we will be ready to make a new release in the next few days.
Jerry is just fixing one last bug that is preventing "make check" from
working.

Can you find out if we can put a limit on the size of messages
accepted by the mailing list, say 100k max.  The new "make check"
output is HUMUNGOUS (over 5 megabytes) -- so if someone sends it to
the list now it would be a big problem!

Thanks.

------- End of forwarded message -------

Re: disallowing too-long messages

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 76itw9q302.fsf@odie.lanl.gov >you write:
  > 
  > One of my GSL maintainers wrote this and it seems reasonable: it would
  > suck if someone were to inadvertently post a 5meg "make check" output.
  > 
  > Is it possible with our ezlm s/w?
It's trivial.  Presumably a 100kbyte limit on gsl-discuss and gsl-announce
would be appropriate?

jeff

Re: disallowing too-long messages

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 76itw9q302.fsf@odie.lanl.gov >you write:
  > 
  > One of my GSL maintainers wrote this and it seems reasonable: it would
  > suck if someone were to inadvertently post a 5meg "make check" output.
  > 
  > Is it possible with our ezlm s/w?
It's trivial.  Presumably a 100kbyte limit on gsl-discuss and gsl-announce
would be appropriate?

jeff

Re: disallowing too-long messages

[Mark Galassi]

    Jeffrey> It's trivial.  Presumably a 100kbyte limit on gsl-discuss
    Jeffrey> and gsl-announce would be appropriate?

Sure.  Can you make it 200K without trouble?  If not go with 100K.

Re: disallowing too-long messages

[Mark Galassi]

    Jeffrey> It's trivial.  Presumably a 100kbyte limit on gsl-discuss
    Jeffrey> and gsl-announce would be appropriate?

Sure.  Can you make it 200K without trouble?  If not go with 100K.

Re: disallowing too-long messages

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 76puqejxir.fsf@odie.lanl.gov >you write:
  > 
  >     Jeffrey> It's trivial.  Presumably a 100kbyte limit on gsl-discuss
  >     Jeffrey> and gsl-announce would be appropriate?
  > 
  > Sure.  Can you make it 200K without trouble?  If not go with 100K.
Done.  200kbytes it is.
jeff

Re: disallowing too-long messages

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 76puqejxir.fsf@odie.lanl.gov >you write:
  > 
  >     Jeffrey> It's trivial.  Presumably a 100kbyte limit on gsl-discuss
  >     Jeffrey> and gsl-announce would be appropriate?
  > 
  > Sure.  Can you make it 200K without trouble?  If not go with 100K.
Done.  200kbytes it is.
jeff

Re: disallowing too-long messages

[Jim Kingdon]

> One of my GSL maintainers wrote this and it seems reasonable: it would
> suck if someone were to inadvertently post a 5meg "make check" output.

Most lists probably have a 5 meg limit, as described at
http://sourceware.cygnus.com/sourceware/procedures/new-list.txt

Yes, ideally project leaders would be able to change the limit at
will.  But failing that, I'm not sure I want to get into the game of
"what should the limit be" for each list as I'm sure there are lots of
opinions (and there are lots of lists, that's for sure).

Re: disallowing too-long messages

[Jim Kingdon]

> One of my GSL maintainers wrote this and it seems reasonable: it would
> suck if someone were to inadvertently post a 5meg "make check" output.

Most lists probably have a 5 meg limit, as described at
http://sourceware.cygnus.com/sourceware/procedures/new-list.txt

Yes, ideally project leaders would be able to change the limit at
will.  But failing that, I'm not sure I want to get into the game of
"what should the limit be" for each list as I'm sure there are lots of
opinions (and there are lots of lists, that's for sure).

Re: disallowing too-long messages

[Jason Molenda]

On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 01:26:43PM -0400, Jim Kingdon wrote:

> Most lists probably have a 5 meg limit, as described at
> http://sourceware.cygnus.com/sourceware/procedures/new-list.txt


Actually, I rarely imposed any limits on the lists I set up unless
specfically asked to.  The note about msgsize is there more as a
reminder for when list admins request it.

I think the only lists that use limits comprehensively are the gcc
lists, which IIRC, restrict posts to ~100k.

In any event, someone with 'alias' access (which really means root
access) has to make changes to a list like this.

J

Re: disallowing too-long messages

[Jason Molenda]

On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 01:26:43PM -0400, Jim Kingdon wrote:

> Most lists probably have a 5 meg limit, as described at
> http://sourceware.cygnus.com/sourceware/procedures/new-list.txt


Actually, I rarely imposed any limits on the lists I set up unless
specfically asked to.  The note about msgsize is there more as a
reminder for when list admins request it.

I think the only lists that use limits comprehensively are the gcc
lists, which IIRC, restrict posts to ~100k.

In any event, someone with 'alias' access (which really means root
access) has to make changes to a list like this.

J