Ray, I think that the constraint makes more sense as a positive real number.
While the length of a thread will never be exactly a non-integer length, it
will eventually exceed any finite real-valued limit imposed, which is all
(Actually, the "non-negative" part is optional. A limit that is <= 0 will
still allow the first message through before the list is throttled.)
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 18:18, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think the constraint is that it has to be a rational number.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:58 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] mailing list administratativia
> I vote for changing the limit threshold to
> PI * (eventual length of this meta-thread).
> On Oct 27, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Doran, Michael D <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> Can that limit threshold be raised? If so, are there reasons why it
> should not be raised?
> > Is it to throttle spam or something? 50 seems rather low, and it's
> > rather depressing to have a lively discussion throttled like that. Not
> > to mention I thought I was simply kicked out for living things up
> > (especially given my reasonable follow-up was where the throttling
> > began).
> > Alex
> > --
> > Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic
> > Maps
> > --- http://shelter.nu/blog/
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > ------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen
> > ---
> Eric Hellman
> President, Gluejar, Inc.
> 41 Watchung Plaza, #132
> Montclair, NJ 07042
> [log in to unmask]