From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E36B139694 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 04:19:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D47221C054; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 04:19:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qt0-x242.google.com (mail-qt0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CFB121C043 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 04:19:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-x242.google.com with SMTP id r49so8910687qta.1 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:19:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=mcVRhUY0xY+8jVs/eb+zZ/R4ZPqQrbd8rF0mWSGgXdo=; b=smU7D/Tp/NpjGON8AQZozNT0EsYo5pPWcSA1SuBVw6VsKG8Rfa5EA42pgfgVs0lDGo Hlr+88pYU2CFRc2MlfBPLDDIjOiUg4+J3jJbEgAp1MfheN1Jvd21LttgmlNz5kFLJ4h1 fnYCEFEwpSPJjYmotGp5JpswSfUlJsrdfLuKAkbybZeKEM1BAXKSMoiMF0Z/XDNYx7kd wRRgmBZsq8xGrsTtnsuVhAd0Sq6GvXn/Za5Goz1iLmVJMJDdKH5pPIVa0wFYh7cerEBn LC3VpQGlXD+127QjboGngxVNot4UGUxo7Puil8UFWaj70qvzTRtDK+FPaBTfsIg8Nw6v rECQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=mcVRhUY0xY+8jVs/eb+zZ/R4ZPqQrbd8rF0mWSGgXdo=; b=nbXSPFzTxubN3XEe+N6cQ/0wdISB2fvKqHMEg5S8IHc3Fpwa4zfsAYjFTJQB6b8Nj+ ldA8tN5TUbvfbtZZW4sn3W2XCrJMdeCV0JH1V5WKmbWEzMCnHBz4LzB0+0s/m01PQLTc k2K0shjoKEhmaIcNr3nClWmZ/Ya/zsjR2WM3GvYJmc5eFleaey/YrGwvVsqNomXnyRvq G0qUalPY5ghY+sn6jPq64kJAVeZ640FzwDxI9cXxQv5oRtYpmpzoVwA912HMViAN+ysw y0HNefpmIhSAeJMyi96bHzHeDuF81nD0DqX0YDQrFwolaOC1yvw06zuI3Kz8AVZA5Ydv 7TPg== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7hwNFoAIKrEGxap9QQ2tk7GQ2epC4ZLs6WNsDGIgw+Wmg88gBK2RTC3gR0AbhFyPY/3FoK2df1Mh6Y9Q== X-Received: by 10.237.62.243 with SMTP id o48mr11736269qtf.89.1491884385071; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:19:45 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.139.90 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:19:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170411125707.4e614fae@katipo2.lan> References: <27130011.JyUlhVfQXu@pinacolada> <20170411125707.4e614fae@katipo2.lan> From: Raymond Jennings Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:19:04 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Per-sender rate limiting our mailing lists To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: b27f6ba4-f29f-440d-964d-830a14d1a3b1 X-Archives-Hash: a871aee856ae256ad6023145840a8a4a On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:22:26 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > >> It is sad when people cannot use means like Comrel or violations of >> CoC to control things as they see fit. Then they seek other means to >> limit, control, and filter people. That is hardly an open society, much >> less accepting or tolerant. > > The best thing about a rate limit mechanism, is instead of having to single out and blacklist > various egregious users who are an evident problem, and having to defend accusations of bias .... > > You get to target the behaviour in a way that applies to everyone equally. > > You can't claim somebody is getting special treatment that way. > > Or do you *want* special treatment? My two cents: We shouldn't treat everyone equally, but the basis of our discrimination should be based on behavior, not identity. A blind ratelimit would cause problems, since there are a number of legitimate uses for rapid messages, of which kernel patches are one such example. What if the ratelimit was based on karma? Some sort of feedback mechanism where list readers could up/down-vote specific senders based on quality? My hunch is that such a mechanism would naturally weed out unproductive discussion.