Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D765610AD for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:22:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f54.google.com (mail-vk0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4278B2F for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:22:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id e6so104558560vkh.2 for ; Tue, 02 Feb 2016 11:22:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5zszaPdHvMBVFZ4xAKl/b6xwFhQ556Bepq7ystMAcLo=; b=zq3zGD3NbZSIF/v6v15BfalKcnhGJhDYpjAHwl8NJd5clXhoYbxz6nK7/PTCHKt0Qf /MKAG9c4Vi4RRRpET2qoG3vuHadbFnPlmaLg4Iq5aKq9sGnzyC1c1bBVYIMxaXIQdCj7 cDLvEKlFwjP2JAzo8DSLrh2BUAOc+7/wJIQhYgoEfcebtFLPtGyS+gtBo5BmdPvNQvlY VcZBzVLCvI4MBuctq+N7N8wkafLvL7mMXrqJGH4j+WudjNquNdIbm3fF3R5r1YUjY2+V dPnRKtv4N5mrjcJpU078IDOcHK4D2Zu+VM910Z4DR3Wk7/op89mA9IzB/9PY1O5C8HIf i5vg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5zszaPdHvMBVFZ4xAKl/b6xwFhQ556Bepq7ystMAcLo=; b=TBm5xsK30ty9KvSR0v8gDMfEK1wQW05PxchtWs9DQWVhqQwTMSJn8GOPYMZu+pIA7E tblSPpTUTRzaVWkZOJGRHwLi2b6FmtDwsjwG/hNBUjQ5EYzFkQnzgSFFM4Ip0QFyxjzs hJfidxw40H15q6lExjE6BCJNWsUdNQVVmcdGz/yLo+oNCLstGFma9Bxpr7Sj0a6gyfWy qiAbsINEK7VQBMACnY20oEEnE8Ak0pp13a9mGlrOuhxWgXz7IZBgXLFbSDVmrAv9cCTu cL9cPRTq0vgFmqzaPWlr6wVPiFcWrQneFt4N47ePFKAY7ew4HWtuoEDO5zHVtvLo18wW D9GQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTpEj/OjzpwEEQ0ULA/HZybCVQ7DipNfkvE955SlI1pW8fZ0oL71P5VS/vT1PbABqsTziLtRiBeDWd6KQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.173.8 with SMTP id w8mr21337696vke.42.1454440930401; Tue, 02 Feb 2016 11:22:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.96.210 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 11:22:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20160202191209.GA6880@muck> References: <201601260323.14993.luke@dashjr.org> <56A79C86.1030902@gmail.com> <20160202170356.GC18604@muck> <20160202173849.GA5096@muck> <20160202191209.GA6880@muck> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 11:22:10 -0800 Message-ID: From: Toby Padilla To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143fc8e00e3b4052ace6b6b X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:31:13 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment Protocol X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 19:22:11 -0000 --001a1143fc8e00e3b4052ace6b6b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I think it would be helpful to clarify this in the list documentation. Right now there's a bunch of conflicting information. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev states: "*Greylisting Notice* Your first post to this list may be delayed by 5+ minutes due to Greylisting . Subsequent posts should go through without delay." https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-October/011591.html states: "Everyone starts moderated, and the mod bit gets cleared as they post. It gets set again if someone notices or reports a violation." On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:41:35AM -0800, Toby Padilla wrote: > > Then the moderation is being unevenly applied. Luke commented against my > > BIP multiple times right after it was published but it took hours for my > > responses to go through and I had to track people down on IRC to ask > about > > it: > > > > > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/thread.html > > Keep in mind that actual human beings need to hit the approve button on > your posts; quite likely Luke happened to respond when those humans were > available, and you didn't. I personally had to do the exact same thing > the other day with one of my posts. > > Moderation is an unfortunate thing to need, but this list is read by > literally hundreds of busy people, many of whome have had to unsubscribe > at various points in the past due to a lack of moderation. I wish we had > a better solution, but that's what we have. We're also not along in > using fairly agressive moderation, for example the > cryptography@metzdowd.com mailing list where Bitcoin was originally > announced uses manual approval moderation on all messages as well; > there's also an unmoderated offshoot of it, cryptography@randombit.net > > (and feel free to start an unmoderated version of bitcoin-dev!) > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 000000000000000008320874843f282f554aa2436290642fcfa81e5a01d78698 > --001a1143fc8e00e3b4052ace6b6b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think it would be helpful to clarify this in the list do= cumentation. Right now there's a bunch of conflicting information.=C2= =A0


"= ;Greylisti= ng Notice=C2=A0
Your first post to this list may be delayed by 5+ minutes= due to=C2=A0Greylisting. Sub= sequent posts should go through without delay."

<= div>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/p= ipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-October/011591.html states:
"Eve= ryone starts moderated, and the mod bit gets cleared as they post. <= span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);white-space:pre-wrap">It gets set again if s= omeone notices or reports a violation."

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:1= 2 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:41:35AM -08= 00, Toby Padilla wrote:
> Then the moderation is being unevenly applied. Luke commented against = my
> BIP multiple times right after it was published but it took hours for = my
> responses to go through and I had to track people down on IRC to ask a= bout
> it:
>
> http://lists.lin= uxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/thread.html

Keep in mind that actual human beings need to hit the approve button= on
your posts; quite likely Luke happened to respond when those humans were available, and you didn't. I personally had to do the exact same thing<= br> the other day with one of my posts.

Moderation is an unfortunate thing to need, but this list is read by
literally hundreds of busy people, many of whome have had to unsubscribe at various points in the past due to a lack of moderation. I wish we had a better solution, but that's what we have. We're also not along in=
using fairly agressive moderation, for example the
cryptography@metzdowd.com = mailing list where Bitcoin was originally
announced uses manual approval moderation on all messages as well;
there's also an unmoderated offshoot of it, cryptography@randombit.net

(and feel free to start an unmoderated version of bitcoin-dev!)

--
http= s://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000008320874843f282f554aa2436290642fcfa81e5a01d78698

--001a1143fc8e00e3b4052ace6b6b--