Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A95063256A for ; Fri, 14 May 2010 04:13:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 43539-10 for ; Fri, 14 May 2010 07:13:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com (mail-wy0-f174.google.com [74.125.82.174]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E359A632517 for ; Fri, 14 May 2010 04:13:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: by mail-wy0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 32so1472925wyb.19 for ; Fri, 14 May 2010 00:13:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tE6xy7KPi6Ju8yf8iq21AytIY68Mj9vGMgC8uej/y3g=; b=eh1tyOymXmPXc5VKkXVeXia2HhY/MVoMYtcDj8BOoooSIu35C8BPbKHIoNGCt3KeEs Ck2k2gdw5yjhYzoxPPI9okrO2Zabdv0or1PEhVDhWe0SRavEcVK/gFb3KOGhggWBB4zG rIKBLI8i2Qx5deTsjZmIYFzod5MX4XKIHWVf4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=w6Wtkf74laQI24XqBbbIoNwa8GU6pRvqeGDCqUDmbEHd4qVeI7ABfcNn+vyBe2O9dl pWz5CDCApEenCho7OSzFqn3x3WkrSZIdFwDipt1veau25sVyBIgmMq0pdtkdyl++VQjZ uNrJBv3KPm4YQvzX8jm7HKOSYYjEAMMpVg388= Received: by 10.227.156.139 with SMTP id x11mr813628wbw.104.1273821192263; Fri, 14 May 2010 00:13:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [0.0.0.0] (5357DA75.cable.casema.nl [83.87.218.117]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h22sm14667098wbh.3.2010.05.14.00.13.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 14 May 2010 00:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BECF80D.7020806@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 09:13:17 +0200 From: Yeb Havinga User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marc G. Fournier" CC: Alvaro Herrera , Greg Stark , Robert Haas , Bruce Momjian , Simon Riggs , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: List traffic References: <201005111350.o4BDo4x27597@momjian.us> <1273598624-sup-3654@alvh.no-ip.org> <4BEC4DCD.3050602@gmail.com> <1273783373-sup-1781@alvh.no-ip.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201005/741 X-Sequence-Number: 162404 Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Excerpts from Yeb Havinga's message of jue may 13 15:06:53 -0400 2010: >> >>> My $0.02 - I like the whole 'don't sort, search' (or how did they call >>> it?) just let the inbox fill up, google is fast enough. What would be >>> really interesting is to have some extra 'tags/headers' added to the >>> emails (document classification with e.g. self organizing map/kohonen), >>> so my local filters could make labels based on that, instead of perhaps >>> badly spelled keywords in subjects or message body. > > I missed this when I read it the first time .. all list email does > have an X-Mailing-List header added so that you can label based on > list itself ... is that what you mean, or are you thinking of > something else entirely? Something else: if automatic classification of articles was in place, there would be need of fewer mailing lists, depending on the quality of the classification. IMHO the problem of handling the big volume of the lists is not solved by splitting into more, since it does not decrease the amount of posts that are interesting from the subscribers perspective. It would only mean that posters are more likely to make mistakes, a possible increase in crossposts or 'my question was not answered there so now I try here' on the sender part, and at the subscriber side bigger chance to miss interesting articles. That my current mailing list setup works for me supports this claim; I did not subscribe to less lists, but managed to decrease the ms spent at 'handling' to an amount that became workable. Though I do not believe algorithmic article classification/ranking to provide a 100% fool proof filter, it might help decreasing the "ms spent per article" more. Take a look at how "carrot2" clusters results from the query "postgresql prepared transactions site:postgresql.org" - http://search.carrot2.org/stable/search?source=web&view=tree&skin=fancy-compact&query=postgresql+prepared+transactions+site%3Apostgresql.org&results=100&algorithm=lingo&EToolsDocumentSource.country=ALL&EToolsDocumentSource.language=ENGLISH&EToolsDocumentSource.safeSearch=false I wonder if a cluster algorithm could tag articles with (multiple) keywords, e.g. 'hackers','prepared transaction','dba' etc etc. I could then make filters or ranking on: hackers AND optimizer -> +10. regards, Yeb Havinga