 |
 |
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 that's necessary. (Actually, the "non-negative" part is optional. A limit that is <= 0 will still allow the first message through before the list is throttled.) - David 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 > Eric > Hellman > 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 > USA > > [log in to unmask] > http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/ > @gluejar >