I think it would be helpful to clarify this in the list documentation. Right now there's a bunch of conflicting information. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev states: "*Greylisting Notice* Your first post to this list may be delayed by 5+ minutes due to Greylisting . Subsequent posts should go through without delay." https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-October/011591.html states: "Everyone starts moderated, and the mod bit gets cleared as they post. It gets set again if someone notices or reports a violation." On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:41:35AM -0800, Toby Padilla wrote: > > Then the moderation is being unevenly applied. Luke commented against my > > BIP multiple times right after it was published but it took hours for my > > responses to go through and I had to track people down on IRC to ask > about > > it: > > > > > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/thread.html > > Keep in mind that actual human beings need to hit the approve button on > your posts; quite likely Luke happened to respond when those humans were > available, and you didn't. I personally had to do the exact same thing > the other day with one of my posts. > > Moderation is an unfortunate thing to need, but this list is read by > literally hundreds of busy people, many of whome have had to unsubscribe > at various points in the past due to a lack of moderation. I wish we had > a better solution, but that's what we have. We're also not along in > using fairly agressive moderation, for example the > cryptography@metzdowd.com mailing list where Bitcoin was originally > announced uses manual approval moderation on all messages as well; > there's also an unmoderated offshoot of it, cryptography@randombit.net > > (and feel free to start an unmoderated version of bitcoin-dev!) > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 000000000000000008320874843f282f554aa2436290642fcfa81e5a01d78698 >