On Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 10:35 , Tom Chappell wrote:

> Because of that five-a-day limit, sometimes I don't reply; and, sometimes,
>  I reply directly to the person who posted, instead of to the list.
> Henrik says he is considering relaxing or eliminating the 
> five-posts-a-day-limit.  I think, if his software were up to it, a 
> sensible limit would be something like one-or-two replies per thread or 
> per thread/contributor combination per two- or four- or eight-hours. 
> Obviously a troll or twit could get around the limit by screwing with the 
> subject heading or by deliberately posting replies to the wrong thread;

Yes, yes. But when is a thread not a thread? Anyone who has been on this 
list for some time will know that subject headers frequently do not get 
changed even when the thread has move way off the original topic. It has 
not been uncommon to find the contents of a mail bears no relation to the 
subject heading.

On the other hand, a subject heading may get changed because of slight 
change of emphasis in a thread or a thread will go off in two quite 
legitimate directions. Who decides what is actually pertinent to a thread 
and what is not? This IMO is likely to be a source of argument and will 
put an unfair burden on Henrik.

The five posts per day limit was introduced at the same time as the 100 
posts per day limit. Without a limit on number of posts per person, two or 
three people could have monopolized the list, giving no opportunity for 
others to be heard.

Why was the 100 per day limit introduced (I think it is actually 99)?

Well quite a few of us, I suspect, remember the old days of heavy traffic.
  We would open up our mail box to find some 200 or more mails waiting the 
next day! It was quite impossible for many of us to keep up with the 
volume of traffic; so a lot of mails were skimmed or even trashed unread 
(if the thread did not seem particularly interesting). This was very 

Also every so often the volume was simply too much for the server at Brown 
to handle and the list got locked, so *no one* could post for a day or two 
till John unlocked the list and opened the floodgates.

The new ruling of 100 per day & five per person per day has improved 
things immensely IMHO. I think _very serious_ thought ought to be given 
before making any further change.

[log in to unmask]
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760