From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30767 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2005 19:31:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30053 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2005 19:31:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ob2.cmich.edu) (141.209.20.21) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Jan 2005 19:31:08 -0000 Received: from egate1.central.cmich.local ([141.209.15.85]) by ob2.cmich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j04KNBB6032171; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:23:14 -0500 Received: from leon.phy.cmich.edu ([141.209.165.20]) by egate1.central.cmich.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:31:34 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by leon.phy.cmich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049F970016; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:30:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:31:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald To: xconq7 Cc: xconq-general@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: Multiple copies of messages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jan 2005 19:31:34.0878 (UTC) FILETIME=[0062E7E0:01C4F294] X-Spam-Score: -0.9 () X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 X-SW-Source: 2005/txt/msg00020.txt.bz2 Hi Matthew, welcome back, On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: > on SourceForge, as well as the one on sources.redhat.com. Quite often a > given message will be relevant to two of the SourceForge lists, so it gets > crossposted to both of those, but then it'll also be crossposted to the > redhat.com list because lots of people haven't subscribed to the > SourceForge lists yet, and the lists are configured to encourage direct > CC:s of replies to the original poster, so if I've previously participated > in a discussion I'll probably be on the CC: list as well, and so the end > result is that I usually get three or four copies of every message. I've been contemplating this same issue lately. I'll look at the mailman settings for the lists tonight. As far as CC'ing the Redhat list is concerned, I am willing to quit doing that any time now. The Sourceforge listserv has shown itself to just as reliable as the Redhat one, albeit with a slower turnaround time. There are/were two reasons for CC'ing the Redhat list: (1) As you mention, not everyone migrated. (2) This whole jaunt over at Sourceforge was just intended to be a test to see if SF.net could meet our needs. I believe that it has proven reliable so far. My only complaints are that they are not currently tracking CVS commits and adds, and that there is about 8 hour lag time between a CVS commit, and when it propagates to the world-facing CVS pserver. However, I have no problems with CVS checkout or commit failures. But, back to the mailings lists__, I think Sourceforge has shown that it could be the "official" home of Xconq. If Stan gives his stamp of approval to this, I will forgo the 'xconq7' mailing list. Stan, if you're reading this, can we make the official site of Xconq be at Sourceforge? Also, you are invited to be a project admin on the Sourceforge site; just let me know the SF user ID that should be added to the project. > Would it be possible to move the > subscriber list from sources.redhat.com to sourceforge, to lessen the > impact of closing the older list? That is a possibility, though whoever has access to the Redhat mailing list manager would have to arrange for this. Also, it would probably be good to get a nod of general consent from those "affected" by the move. Eric P.S. It may be wondered why SF has 5 mailing lists (general, developers, hackers, players, and cvs), whereas sources.redhat.com only has 3 ([main list], cvs, and announce). I thought it might be nice to separate the general discussion from the developer and hacker discussions so as not to scare off Xconq newbies. The cross-posting problem did not seem to be a major problem in my mind when I was first structuring the lists.