Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Fri, 07 June 2013 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1073521F9943 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fomUBXgpMJOB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9D0F21F9920 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from /spool/local by e31.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <ietf@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:51:15 -0600
Received: from d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.177) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:51:12 -0600
Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 557341FF005A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:46:00 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r57GpKnJ149210 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:51:21 -0600
Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r57GpBUK020073 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:51:11 -0600
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-142-41.mts.ibm.com [9.65.142.41]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r57Gp9JC019944 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:51:10 -0600
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id r57Gp9Sf028501 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:51:09 -0400
Message-Id: <201306071651.r57Gp9Sf028501@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: "<ietf@ietf.org>" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1306070901590.4180@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <201306070453.r574r3Wt010088@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> <CADnDZ89FjyPtvJQSqY+kmX+1KYkc0jo1mRpOgkfcEnTH6Vbg6A@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751CA462@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <201306071449.r57EnN5N008971@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <CABCOCHSkLj0409hyeqKNdomOdrScYypi_7a1xWqMEUV9eTPuCw@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751CA801@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1306070901590.4180@egate.xpasc.com>
Comments: In-reply-to David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> message dated "Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:04:50 -0700."
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:51:09 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-TM-AS-MML: No
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 13060716-7282-0000-0000-000018064814
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:51:24 -0000

> I've wondered for some time whether the reported bytes is the
> whole message I send included context quotes, or if there is
> an attempt by the summary logic to factor out quoted
> content.

Original script is here:
http://www.hactrn.net/hacks/mh-list-traffic/mh-list-traffic

I don't think I've modified it other than to keep it running under my
local setup.

>From my perspective, the intention/usefulness of the weekly posting is
to give folk a high-level view of who is posting and how often. It is
not uncommon to see certain individuals stand out. In some cases, that
makes perfect sense -- and the signal level is high. In other cases,
it shows (IMO) people who are too quick to post and who (too often)
say predictable things if you've read previous threads on the same
general topic. YMMV.

Beyond that (e.g., tweaking the priorities of how rankings are done),
I don't see much point.  Different people will have different opinions
on what to give priority to, and this is ultimately a judgement call.

Thomas