Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I can't imagine that there's not going to need to be a "catchall"
> list for problems that don't fit into any of the subcategories.
>
> More generally, we already have most of the lists that you
> suggest, and we already know that people frequently don't find the
> most appropriate list for postings. I don't think getting rid of
> -general would help that in the least. The way to cut down on
> misposted traffic is to make the set of categories smaller and
> simpler, not to redouble our efforts to persuade people to use the
> same or even more categories.
Well, redoubling our current efforts to direct people to more
specific lists would accomplish nothing, since doubling zero leaves
you with zero. The description of -general includes:
| General discussion area for users. Apart from compile, acceptance
| test, and bug problems, most new users will probably only be
| interested in this mailing list
Given that, the fact that -admin, -novice, -sql, and -performance
collectively get as many posts as -general suggests that people are,
in fact, making some effort to find a list which seems a good fit.
Perhaps if the description of -general was changed to suggest it
*was* a catch-all for posts which don't fit the other lists, things
would improve.
-Kevin