From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 00:09:52 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA26111 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 23:55:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolero.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id XAA26104 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 23:55:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from waltz.rahul.net by bolero.rahul.net with SMTP id AA03415 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Sat, 30 Nov 1996 23:54:58 -0800 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0) id AA16898; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 23:54:57 -0800 Message-Id: <199612010754.AA16898@waltz.rahul.net> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Lyris In-Reply-To: <199611291557.HAA28092@miles.greatcircle.com> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 96 23:54:56 -0800 From: Michelle Dick Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > > But it doesn't offer any speed-up, since you need to resend the entire > message data every time, ie MAIL FROM, RCPT, DATA, MAIL, RCPT, DATA and > so forth. It also means Lyris will require significantly more bandwidth > than competing products. Quite. I am currently moving my mailing list of 3200 subscribers (3100 of them on the daily digest version which is typically 40k in size) to my own machine (an overpowered P166) to reduce load on my previous host site. I am paying for a dedicated 28.8kpbs link and have permission to use the host site as a mail relay. I've been experimenting with various MTAs and tried qmail, which is incapable of multiple RCPTS but has other good features. I did a test, sending out 40k message to all 3200 subscribers. One pass through the addresses took 8.5 hours, totally tying up the 28.8 line at full bandwidth. About 200 addresses were queued for resending. I switched to exim (another MTA) which does multiple RCPTS and used my relay host. Transit time over my link: 15 minutes. I was able to do other ppp activity over my line during this 15 minutes. Perfect bounce processing is a worthy goal (though I would personally chose qmail's envelope from encoding over To: header rewriting). I use Smartlist for precisely this reason: it handles about 95% of the bounces automatically. In my case, using a product which handled this remaining 5% is not worth 34+ times as much bandwidth usage. -- Michelle Dick artemis@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 02:39:51 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id CAA00648 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 02:36:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from izzy4.izzy.net (izzy4.izzy.net [198.108.102.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id CAA00641 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 02:36:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from UUatbbs@localhost) by izzy4.izzy.net (8.8.3/8.6.9) id FAA10257 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 05:32:37 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: izzy4.izzy.net: UUatbbs set sender to atbbs!dbsmith using -f >Received: by atbbs.com (0.99.960714) id AA00720; 01 Dec 96 05:35:39 -0500 From: dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) Date: 01 Dec 96 00:05:02 -0500 Subject: Re: Re[4]: Lyris Message-ID: References: <199612010409.UAA21529@miles.greatcircle.com> Organization: American Tune BBS To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "F>> from the quill of "Roger B.A. Klorese" on scroll "F>> <3.0.1.32.19961127214640.026f3448@pop.queernet.org> "F>> > Whether or not you agree with it, the logic is: you are LICENSING (not "F>> > purchasing) tools for the accomplishment of benefit to you. The "F>> > licensor has the right to derive more benefit when the licensor does. "F>> "F>> Because I bought a bigger machine (had to pay for the extra resource), "F>> capable of doing more/bigger lists that somehow reflects on how much more "F>> the software has delivered me. The software is doing exaclty what it was "F>> when I had 3 lists, my hardware just got bigger and able to handle more "F>> lists/users. "F>> "F>> b. "F>Scaling up isn't always simply a matter of purchasing more powerful "F>hardware. Sometimes improved algorithms are needed. And I don't "F>think it makes sense to expect a software developer to implement "F>two versions of a product just so a less functional one can be "F>sold for less. But that's not the question. You have two different customers, buying exactly the same product. One is paying less money. The other is paying more money for the same product, -because- they also paid more money for hardware, more money for connections to the Net, and so on. But the product is -exactly- the same. Why should the customer who more heavily uses the product subsidise the smaller user? If the product is worth X, why is a person who fully utilizes the product paying Y? ___ X SLMR 2.1a X No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway. -- >> David B. Smith Email sysop@atbbs.com, dbsmith@izzy.net >> Sysop, American Tune BBS "The cure for all the ills of Democracy >> is more Democracy!" -- NY Gov. Al Smith >> >> My views are sometimes not even my own, much less anyone else's. >> My employers don't necessarily speak for me, either, 'natch. From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 05:24:53 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id FAA03549 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 05:10:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id FAA03542 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 05:10:06 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612011310.FAA03542@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <8.CC6F7496@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 14:09:58 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 4770; Sun, 01 Dec 96 14:03:27 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 3918; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 14:03:27 +0100 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 10:55:09 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Re[4]: Lyris To: brian@ilinx.ilinx.com, rogerk@QueerNet.ORG, Roger Fajman cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Sat, 30 Nov 1996 23:08:51 EST from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 30 Nov 1996 23:08:51 EST Roger Fajman said: >Scaling up isn't always simply a matter of purchasing more powerful >hardware. Sometimes improved algorithms are needed. To illustrate this point, here are performance figures from the three versions of LISTSERV (Lite, Classic and High Performance) for the so-called "biglist" test suite. This creates a list with 100,000 subscribers and a request from its list owner to add 1,000 subscribers to it. The timing is from the first to last lines of code in the ADD command, ie this includes command parsing, privilege/password checks, RFC822 parsing (for the individual name/address pairs, which can be specified in any valid RFC822 format), time to perform alias hostname checks, and so forth. However, the time to process the incoming mail message and decide that it is an ADD request from JOE@FOO.COM is not counted. I ran the test on my PC (P90 with 32M), since this is not for a press release or the like I didn't bother to close other applications and so on. Similarly, I extrapolated the Classic and Lite figures from smaller runs because I don't have all day. +---------+--------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+ | | ELAPSED time | ELAPSED time | Users added | Ratio of CPU | | Version | (1000 users) | (per user) | per second | to elapsed | +---------+--------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+ | Lite | 2h 4m 23s | 7.47 sec | 0.13 | 31.6% | +---------+--------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+ | Classic | 27m 13s | 1.63 sec | 0.61 | 43.5% | +---------+--------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+ | HPO | 0.44 sec | 0.00044 sec | 2264.15 | 79.1% | +---------+--------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+ The Lite version uses the same data format as the other versions (to facilitate migration) but treats the files as flat, plain text files. It's a bit like reading a database sequentially until you've found what you're looking for, as opposed to searching for it directly. At 7.5 sec for an ADD to a list of 100k subscribers, it is probably in the same league as the compiled freebies, possibly somewhat faster. You can buy the Lite version and run a list of that size with it, and we don't mind at all. But you're going to have to put very serious money on the table to get a machine big enough to give you decent numbers here. Upgrading to an infinitely fast CPU would offer a 31% speedup. This algorithm is I/O bound and takes about 1-2 seconds of development time (plus implementation of course). Note that the 7.5 sec result already includes a large read cache, provided automatically by NT (any free RAM is used as a file cache until a better use is found). The Classic version uses the traditional LISTSERV algorithms to manipulate the data files. At 1.6 sec it should outperform all freebies and most commercial products. The difference is actually much bigger on systems which don't implement such a huge file cache. That is, the difference may not be enormous on NT, but it used to be much bigger at the time these algorithms were designed. Quite a lot of thinking went into them, and the actual implementation was also optimized. The algorithm is only 43% CPU bound because the goal was to reduce CPU usage, not I/O, since on mainframes people are traditionally billed based on the amount of CPU time they have used. Saving I/O reduces the number of system calls and thus saves CPU cycles, but this was not the primary goal. Again you are welcome to buy a Classic license and a big machine to run a list of this size. 1.6 sec per ADD may very well be sufficient for your needs, present and projected. But quite a number of customers needed a faster system, so we developed one. It was a LOT of work, but it allowed people to do what they needed to do using standard PC hardware. Even on a P90 with 32M you can add 2200 users per second, and this process is mostly CPU bound (95% CPU bound if I include the cycles the system spends performing I/O on the application's behalf). Which is not really surprising since every individual address needs to be parsed, and the figures are for the total elapsed command processing time, not just for the act of adding an address to the database or whatever you want to call it. Why should you pay more for the High Performance version, which is otherwise identical to the Classic version? Simply because the overwhelming majority of customers couldn't care less how well the product performs with lists of that size. We would never have developed and tested these algorithms if we had had to sell the resulting product at the normal price. In the end the interested parties would have bought $200k+ in hardware to get acceptable results with Classic, or someone else would have made a high performance list manager for this niche market, and would have charged according to the number of customers, ie pretty much what we're charging for the High Performance version. We decided that it would be stupid not to grab that market as well, so we developed the High Performance version, but we really see it as a separate product addressing very different needs. Eric From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 05:54:59 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id FAA04286 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 05:54:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from www.ecentral.com ([204.227.4.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id FAA04272 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 05:54:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from 204.227.4.38 (ppp18.ecentral.com [204.227.4.38]) by www.ecentral.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA00253 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 06:53:37 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <32A18EDE.561F@ecentral.com> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 06:57:50 -0700 From: Cindy Stanley Reply-To: connect@ecentral.com Organization: Unschooling List X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Questionable Address? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi all, I just received this notification from Majordomo: > Steve Muhlberger has been added to > unschooling-list-digest. I am wondering if anyone has heard of this server or user before. Unipissing? Sounds a bit suspect to me... Also, what are your policies and feelings about non-subscribers posting to your list? TIA, Cindy Stanley Unschooling List Mom connect@ecentral.com There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered. - Nelson Mandela From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 06:10:02 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA04553 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 06:02:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunic.sunet.se (sunic.sunet.se [192.36.125.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id GAA04545 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 06:02:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from Minsk.DoCS.UU.SE by sunic.sunet.se (8.6.8/2.03) id PAA22707; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 15:02:48 +0100 Received: by Minsk.DoCS.UU.SE (Sun-4/630, SunOS 4.1.2) with sendmail 5.61-bind 1.5+ida/ICU/DoCS id AA28250; Sun, 1 Dec 96 15:02:47 +0100 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 96 15:02:47 +0100 Message-Id: <9612011402.AA28250@Minsk.DoCS.UU.SE> From: Per Starback To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <32A18EDE.561F@ecentral.com> (message from Cindy Stanley on Sun, 01 Dec 1996 06:57:50 -0700) Subject: Re: Questionable Address? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Cindy Stanley wrote: > I am wondering if anyone has heard of this server or user before. > Unipissing? Sounds a bit suspect to me... unipissing.ca is not University of Pissing, which indeed would sound a bit suspect, but Nipissing University. Check out their WWW pages at . > Also, what are your policies and feelings about non-subscribers > posting to your list? I don't allow it, mostly because of spam. -- Per Starback http://www.update.uu.se/~starback "Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!" From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 08:40:10 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA06908 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 08:32:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [140.174.78.69]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id IAA06897 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 08:32:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from attitude.queernet.org (attitude.queernet.org [140.174.78.2]) by queernet.queernet.org (8.8.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id IAA23767 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19961201083110.0281489c@pop.queernet.org> X-Sender: rogerk@pop.queernet.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 beta 1 (32) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 08:31:13 -0800 To: dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re: Re[4]: Lyris Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:05 AM 12/1/96 -0500, David B. Smith wrote: >But that's not the question. You have two different customers, buying >exactly the same product. One is paying less money. The other is >paying more money for the same product, -because- they also paid more >money for hardware, more money for connections to the Net, and so on. >But the product is -exactly- the same. Why should the customer who more >heavily uses the product subsidise the smaller user? They're NOT buying anything. They're licensing a solution to a problem. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG 2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 08:54:52 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA07174 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 08:48:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from webdreams.com (www.webdreams.com [192.80.84.132]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id IAA07167 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 08:48:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by webdreams.com (5.65v3.2/1.1.10.5/29Aug96-0251AM) id AA28890; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:48:16 -0500 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:48:16 -0500 (EST) From: Brock Rozen To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Cc: "David B. Smith" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Re[4]: Lyris In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19961201083110.0281489c@pop.queernet.org> Message-Id: X-Url: http://www.webdreams.com/~brozen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >But that's not the question. You have two different customers, buying > >exactly the same product. One is paying less money. The other is > >paying more money for the same product, -because- they also paid more > >money for hardware, more money for connections to the Net, and so on. > >But the product is -exactly- the same. Why should the customer who more > >heavily uses the product subsidise the smaller user? Are you advocating that Novell should only make a company buy one company of it's software and then be able to install it on thousands of computers? That they should pay as much as a company who installs it on only 10 computers? The answer is very simple, and there's two reasons. One, because they are getting more benefit out of the product. Regardless of that, the company can decide HOWEVER much they want to charge for their product. (within law) If you don't like their policies, buy another package! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Brock Rozen | brozen@webdreams.com | http://www.webdreams.com/~brozen | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 11:10:01 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA09453 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 10:59:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ng.netgate.net (ng.netgate.net [204.145.147.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id KAA09442 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 10:59:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.160.108] (d72.netgate.net [205.214.160.108]) by ng.netgate.net (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA21654; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:01:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:01:15 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199611281051.KAA12763@synergy.transbay.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: "John Buckman" From: Dave Crocker Subject: Performance impact & To field contents (was Re: Lyris) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:42 AM -0000 11/28/96, John Buckman wrote: >LISTSERV, ListProc and Majordomo. Every message which goes out to a >list member is slightly different. Each message contains the >member's name and ID in the SMTP header, so that if the message Wow. Please forgive the strength of my statement, but I'd like to congratulate you on an astonishingly bad design decision. You've used an entirely good and reasonable rationale for making a design decision that creates horrible scaling performance and will aid in the congestion of the net, if your product becomes successful. >The To: address of every message is always the recipient's email >address, not the list name. This makes it simple for the recipient >to determine what email address they are subscribed with. > >I don't know of any list server which has these capabilities. As noted by others, the human factors of your design also is problematic, since this makes things a royal pain to filter. I use Eudora so no, it's not just the "ability" to do filtering, it's the criteria and the need to use a different model. And no, this isn't unique. I'm on some other lists that do this and I really don't like it. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 11:12:47 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA09443 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 10:59:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ng.netgate.net (ng.netgate.net [204.145.147.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id KAA09433 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 10:59:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.160.108] (d72.netgate.net [205.214.160.108]) by ng.netgate.net (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA21621; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:00:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:00:59 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199611280355.TAA02009@ilinx.ilinx.com> References: <199611271803.SAA09898@synergy.transbay.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: brian@ilinx.bctel.net From: Dave Crocker Subject: re[2]: Lyris Cc: jbuckman@shelby.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:55 AM -0000 11/28/96, Brian J. Murrell wrote: >bigger? What more do I get when I pay the premium for more lists and/or What you get more of is service. I have no stake in (or knowledge about) Lyris, and I even share your discomfort about such licensing, when the product itself does not change with the fee. The problem, however, is a serious dilemma for software manufacturers. How do they price aggressively and still make money? For example, how do you encourage entry-level users of the package? This requires a low price. But list service software is not a (relatively) high volume market. As someone noted in an earlier message, the entire market is probably at most in the tens or hundreds of thousands of installations, rather than in the tens of millions. So charge people according to use. Small users pay small fees. large users pay larger fees. Having said all the above, my personal choice probably would have been to try to avoid reactions like yours by designing differential products, so that the cheap one is somewhat less performant (e.g., single-threaded) and scales less well and maybe has fewer management features. But that's more hassle. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 11:15:46 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA09557 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:00:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from ng.netgate.net (ng.netgate.net [204.145.147.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA09549 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:00:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.160.108] (d72.netgate.net [205.214.160.108]) by ng.netgate.net (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA21733; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:02:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:02:17 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199611281103.DAA27612@miles.greatcircle.com> References: Message of Wed, 27 Nov 1996 20:34:33 +7 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Eric Thomas From: Dave Crocker Subject: list performance metrics Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:09 AM -0000 11/28/96, Eric Thomas wrote: >socket. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you can get these 300k/hour >using sendmail on the same hardware, if you configured and tuned it for The number that seems to be getting popular for "high performance" MTAs is 100K messages per hour. As you point out in your note, metrics need to be considerably more sophisticated than a simple 'deliveries per second' number. That, of course, leads to a question about the right set of measures for list processing software. Given that this is now a product market segment, it would be helpful to develop ListStones, or somesuch. If there is interested in separate discussion of this (i.e., if it is deemed inappropriate to pursue as an extended discussion on this listed) the IMC would be glad to support a separate list, e.g., imc-listproducts or imc-listperformance or somesuch.) >You aren't seriously suggesting that the figures will improve as the >number of users and hosts in your workload increases? :-) 3000 people Actually, that's not such a silly possibility, since it allows for much better aggregation behavior. The difference between the cost of a single message and address, processed singly, versus the average for a large number of messages and addresses, can be huge, depending upon the design for scaling. d/ ps. I doubt that vanilla sendmail can get even artificial high numbers, due to its tendency to do single message per connection and even per process, though perhaps the recent round of enhancements has improved things. -------------------- Dave Crocker, Director +1 408 246 8253 Internet Mail Consortium (f) +1 408 249 6205 127 Segr=E9 Place dcrocker@imc.o= rg Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA http://www.imc.org Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 12:25:37 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA12155 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 12:12:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom16.netcom.com (netcom16.netcom.com [192.100.81.129]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA12141 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 12:12:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (arcie@localhost) by netcom16.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id NAA04575; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:12:16 -0700 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:12:16 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Cassingham X-Sender: arcie@netcom16 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: subscribing to many lists In-Reply-To: <199611280900.BAA22405@miles.greatcircle.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 28 Nov 1996, List-Managers-Digest wrote: > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:08:32 -0700 (MST) > From: "Lazlo Nibble" > Subject: slcb1bbs@juno.com > > Don't allow this address onto your lists if you can help it -- they're > subscribing to mailing lists so they can spam them. This is the second posting like this is the last couple of days, each with a similar comment. It is NOT my experience that the charge made is true. Rather, most of these people are poor schmucks who are being mailbombed by bozos who use OUR resources to hassle others. They forge the return line in order to sign some hapless victim up for as many lists as possible, so the poor slob has to abandon his address in order to get anything done. To then slander them with "spammer" accusations adds insult to injury. / Randy Cassingham * Author, "This is True" * arcie@netcom.com \ | For info on What I Do, send a blank e-mail to TrueInfo@freecom.com | \ or check out * I promise you'll like it / From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 13:09:53 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA12888 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 12:57:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ilinx.ilinx.com (ilinx.bctel.net [204.174.213.24]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id MAA12881 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 12:57:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from brian@localhost) by ilinx.ilinx.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id MAA01961; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 12:56:58 -0800 From: "Brian J. Murrell" Message-Id: <199612012056.MAA01961@ilinx.ilinx.com> Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 12:56:58 -0800 (PST) To: dbsmith@atbbs.com Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Reply-To: brian@ilinx.bctel.net Subject: Re[6]: Lyris In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Ishmail 1.3-960829-linux MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk from the quill of dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) on scroll > If the product is worth X, why is a person who fully utilizes the > product paying Y? Thank-you. You have hit the nail square on the head. b. -- Brian J. Murrell brian@ilinx.com InterLinx Support Services, Inc. brian@wimsey.com North Vancouver, B.C. 604 983 UNIX Platform and Brand Independent UNIX Support - R3.2 - R4 - BSD From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 13:24:54 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA13255 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:17:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA13248 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:17:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612012117.NAA13248@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <15.E95BACF2@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:17:32 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 6185; Sun, 01 Dec 96 22:11:02 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 6812; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:11:03 +0100 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:15:19 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: list performance metrics To: Dave Crocker cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:02:17 -0800 (PST) from Dave Crocker Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:02:17 -0800 (PST) Dave Crocker said: >ps. I doubt that vanilla sendmail can get even artificial high numbers, >due to its tendency to do single message per connection and even per >process, though perhaps the recent round of enhancements has improved >things. Just put, say, 1000 RCPT TO: fields in your message, all to the same host on the same ethernet. Run 100 concurrently on a PC with enough RAM to avoid paging. That's 100,000 deliveries, now you just have to get them out the door in 20 minutes and you'll have your 300k/hour. All you need to do is assemble enough receiver machines so that your sending PC can be kept 100% CPU busy (it has no paging and virtually no I/O to do). Hint: using sendmail as a receiver is not necessarily a good idea! I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to reach 100/sec or more. I've seen a single LSMTP host input recipients at the rate of 1000/sec sustained from a machine on the same ethernet (while running 1500 outbound connections at the same time, all that on a processor which is totally unimpressive nowadays). This isn't sendmail of course, but where raw CPU cycles for protocol processing are concerned 100/sec is actually not that much. It really means 100 RCPT TO:/250 OK sequences, and this isn't much at all. Actually, I seem to remember that CyberPromo touted 250k/hour, and they are using sendmail. CyberPromo isn't the kind of company that would make up these numbers, they knew from day one that they were going to be suing AOL and other big names, being featured on major newspapers and all that. The last thing you want to do in that case is discredit yourself with figures you've just made up (as opposed to basement spam companies that sell you "advanced turbocharged" mailers for $300 and make whatever performance claims they feel they have to make to get your $300). As a matter of fact, if your setup is optimized to spam only AOL accounts, it is even possible that you might be able to reach these rates with sendmail. Eric From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 13:39:55 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA13906 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:38:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id NAA13868 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:38:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jcook@localhost) by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id NAA11465; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:38:31 -0800 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:38:31 -0800 (PST) From: James Cook Subject: Re: Re[6]: Lyris cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199612012056.MAA01961@ilinx.ilinx.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > from the quill of dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) on scroll > > > If the product is worth X, why is a person who fully utilizes the > > product paying Y? > > Thank-you. You have hit the nail square on the head. > > -- > Brian J. Murrell brian@ilinx.com > InterLinx Support Services, Inc. brian@wimsey.com > North Vancouver, B.C. 604 983 UNIX > Platform and Brand Independent UNIX Support - R3.2 - R4 - BSD > Worth is a variable. A product or service has varying value depending on the needs and constraints of any specific user. Worth varies from user to user, time to time. To say the product is "worth X", seems to reveal the notion that worth is a function development cost. It may mean that to you, it may mean simply "what the profitable portion of the marketplace will bear" to another. Two different users may both fully utilize the features of a product, and yet have different scales of use, different concerns and needs. This explains why one person would find something "worth" the requested price, while another user does not. That seems quite elementary, and underlies all pricing issues for products and services in life. Companies generally invest their time and resources to develop a product that may have a "worth" to a limited percentage of an entire user market... that percentage thereof from which a price can be extracted which yields a profit goal and and cost recovery which makes sense over years of risk and future development. Some people seem to have to problem with demanding a paycheck for their time at work, yet complain about companies of such people charging for their products and services... developed on the backs of people who need paychecks to live. What's up? James Cook From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 14:24:58 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA15303 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 14:12:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from slug.swcp.com (slug.swcp.com [198.59.115.24]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id OAA15296 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 14:12:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by slug.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id PAA28308 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 15:12:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199612012212.PAA28308@slug.swcp.com> Subject: subscribing to many lists To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (lm) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 15:12:20 -0700 (MST) From: "Lazlo Nibble" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >> Subject: slcb1bbs@juno.com >> >> Don't allow this address onto your lists if you can help it -- they're >> subscribing to mailing lists so they can spam them. > > It is NOT my experience that the charge made is true. Rather, most of > these people are poor schmucks who are being mailbombed by bozos who use > OUR resources to hassle others. They forge the return line in order to > sign some hapless victim up for as many lists as possible, so the poor > slob has to abandon his address in order to get anything done. To then > slander them with "spammer" accusations adds insult to injury. In this case, the charge was true. I was there, Randy -- you weren't. -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 16:09:56 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA19496 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 15:55:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from cantec.com ([206.31.250.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA19489 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 15:55:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from www by cantec.com with SMTP (IPAD 1.12) id 2506500 ; Sun, 01 Dec 96 18:53:55 UTC Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961201235056.0030ef84@cantec.com> X-Sender: dbigham@cantec.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 18:50:56 -0500 To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" From: Dave Bigham Subject: Re: Re[4]: Lyris Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:31 AM 12/1/96 -0800, you wrote: >At 12:05 AM 12/1/96 -0500, David B. Smith wrote: >>But that's not the question. You have two different customers, buying >>exactly the same product. One is paying less money. The other is >>paying more money for the same product, -because- they also paid more >>money for hardware, more money for connections to the Net, and so on. >>But the product is -exactly- the same. Why should the customer who more >>heavily uses the product subsidise the smaller user? > >They're NOT buying anything. They're licensing a solution to a problem. >-- >ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG >2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF >"There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick > They are indeed buying something. They are buying a license. I have some serious dificulty with the concept of paying more for the two versions of the same thing if the only difference is some internal limit on its functionality. There is precedent for this though. Many software houses do essentially the same thing. The most notable is Microsoft. Windows NT - 4.0 is sold as a Workstation package and a Server package. The Server package has a bunch of "free" stuff included, costs about 2 1/2 times as much and is *EXACTLY* the same as Workstation. The only difference is two Register settings which can be changed if you know how. Release 3.51 was easier to change but MS figured that one out and hid the settings. At least Listserv offers three versions which are, in great measure, different from one another and have different capacities for sending mail. They apparently aren't numerically limited capacities but algorithmic differences I find the idea of paying more for a product simply because of *MY* use of it troublesome, however. Should I pay more for my personal stock management software because I have $25 million in stocks and bonds and my neighbor less because he only has $25,000? I think not. (Those are, by the way, the last known words of Descartes.) It's been a good discussion though. Best to all. Dave Bigham dbigham@cantec.com From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 16:25:12 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA21377 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:23:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from synergy.transbay.net (synergy.transbay.net [207.105.6.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA21370 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:23:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from kuno (jbuck133.transbay.net [207.105.7.133]) by synergy.transbay.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA18226 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:23:08 GMT Message-Id: <199612011623.QAA18226@synergy.transbay.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "John Buckman" Organization: Walter Shelby Group Ltd. To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:21:14 +7 Subject: re: Lyris X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I thought I'd report back on some changes we're going to make to Lyris as a result of the feedback from this list. We've decided that in the next version of Lyris, the contents of the To: header in outgoing mail will be user-configurable. You'll have the option of not rewriting it, having the To: be the recipient's address, rewriting the To: to be the mailing list address, or putting user-defined text in the To: header Also, though many list servers use a Reply-To header which points back to the list, some people feel very strongly that this is a bad thing. So, we will make Reply-To: a list-configurable setting in the next Lyris version. jb john@shelby.com, Shelby Group Ltd., http://www.shelby.com/ From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 16:41:20 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA21425 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:24:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotstar.net (hotstar.net [204.191.136.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id QAA21409 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:24:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from widgette (ts5-03.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.137.103]) by hotstar.net (8.7.3/8.7) with SMTP id TAA14602; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:26:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961202002658.006b0dc4@inforamp.net> X-Sender: dlj@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 19:26:58 -0500 To: brian@ilinx.bctel.net From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: Re: Re[6]: Lyris Cc: dbsmith@atbbs.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:56 PM 12/1/96 -0800, Brian J. Murrell wrote: >from the quill of dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) on scroll > >> If the product is worth X, why is a person who fully utilizes the >> product paying Y? > >Thank-you. You have hit the nail square on the head. And the answer is simple enough for a child to understand: Nobody is forcing them to pay Y; they are only likely to pay Y if it is in fact worth enough more than Y to them in their judgement to change from what they were doing before. -dlj. From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 16:44:13 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA21667 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:32:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from itw.com (rsk.itw.com [206.138.122.70]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id QAA21660 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:32:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by itw.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id TAA00314 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:32:53 -0500 (EST) From: Rich Kulawiec Message-Id: <199612020032.TAA00314@itw.com> Subject: Re: Re[4]: Lyris To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:32:52 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19961201235056.0030ef84@cantec.com> from "Dave Bigham" at Dec 01, 1996 06:50:56 PM Reply-To: rsk@itw.com Organization: Ditka Diplomatic Studies Institute X-Last-River: Lehigh, PA X-Last-CD: Duncan Sheik, "Duncan Sheik" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0b1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dave Bigham writes: >They are indeed buying something. They are buying a license. > >I have some serious dificulty with the concept of paying more for the two >versions of the same thing if the only difference is some internal limit on >its functionality. There is precedent for this though. My two cents worth (everybody dig in your pockets for loose change and prepare to pay up!): I'm with Dave. I won't buy products that fit this pricing model, because that's my way of voting with my wallet. And since I do consulting to various places, I always try to convince them that they shouldn't either, which I suppose you could say is my way of voting with *their* wallets...which are much, much larger. Dave's also right about there being various precedents for this kind of usage-based pricing; but I figure if enough of us refuse to play this silly game that vendors (are you listening?) will eventually notice. Either that or they can continue to lose potential revenue. ---Rsk From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 17:41:04 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA23622 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:29:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from falcon.inetnebr.com (falcon.inetnebr.com [199.184.119.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id RAA23615 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:29:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from carrot.tssi.com (root@gateway.tssi.com [198.147.197.29]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA29911 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:29:45 -0600 (CST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (carrot.tssi.com) by carrot.tssi.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA07538 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:29:36 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA25493 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:29:33 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199612020129.TAA25493@celery.tssi.com> Subject: re: Lyris Feedback To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:29:33 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I thought I'd report back on some changes we're going to make to > Lyris as a result of the feedback from this list. Since this is a a commercial product and you are using this list as a test market without a beta agreement, where do we send our consulting fee invoices to? -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 17:45:52 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA23299 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:23:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id RAA23266 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:22:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from georgew.gw.pps.pgh.pa.us ([198.206.21.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id UAA00913 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 20:01:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from WIN95_SERVER.pps.pgh.pa.us (modem8.admin.pps.pgh.pa.us [198.206.16.174]) by georgew.gw.pps.pgh.pa.us (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA28651 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:01:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:01:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199611280401.XAA28651@georgew.gw.pps.pgh.pa.us> X-Sender: ctaylor@georgew.gw.pps.pgh.pa.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Ctaylor Subject: Email scanners??? is there such a thing? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 01:00 AM 11/26/96 -0800, you wrote: Is there a email package or browser of sorts with the capability to scan email for Certain subject matter? ie. I subscribe to a sci-fi mailing list and i often have to scan thru pages of unintersting articles to find what i really want to read. I've heard rumors of email browsers with this capability but have not been able to find any that match this discript. What I want to be able to do is make a list of topics, titles, etc and have this program scan for the subject and take any paragraphs with that title and cut them into a new doc. I've been considering developing an app with these capabilities but why reinvent the wheel if I dont have to??? Any re: are welcomed. Carlos Taylor Hetep aNd mAy your MiNd eXpaNd Your HoriZonZ.. :) From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 17:57:46 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA23945 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:41:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ng.netgate.net (ng.netgate.net [204.145.147.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id RAA23938 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:41:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.160.108] (d102.netgate.net [205.214.160.140]) by ng.netgate.net (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA16147; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:42:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:42:57 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199611291557.HAA28092@miles.greatcircle.com> References: Message of Thu, 28 Nov 1996 18:37:19 +7 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Eric Thomas From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Lyris Cc: Jeff Wasilko , John Buckman , Chip Rosenthal , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:48 PM -0000 11/29/96, Eric Thomas wrote: >>Lyris does the same thing. Messages to the same domain are grouped >>together and sent in many fewer SMTP sessions. > >But it doesn't offer any speed-up, since you need to resend the entire >message data every time, ie MAIL FROM, RCPT, DATA, MAIL, RCPT, DATA and >so forth. It also means Lyris will require significantly more bandwidth well, saving on the number of connection setups DOES count. It's just that it doesn't count as well as massively reducing the number of MESSAGES. it occurs to me that the counter to some of our complaints about one message per receipient is that many lists have little aggregation by domain or host, so that one might end up having to send very nearly one message per recipient anyhow... I know that there are no other members of this list at brandenburg.com. If the list manager is really clever, it will discover that the physical machine to send to is ng.netgate.com and will try to aggregate on that; but I doubt there are many recipients for list-managers on that machine, either. sigh. not only is it tough to get good performance, it's tough to get good performance when TALKING about good performance... d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 18:25:04 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA25023 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 18:14:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from polaris.smcs.com (polaris.smcs.com [206.88.72.3]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id SAA25014 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 18:14:23 -0800 (PST) From: Donald Loughlin To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Re[4]: Lyris X-Mailer: ScoMail 3.0.Bd MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:13:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9612012113.aa25180@polaris.smcs.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Rich Kulawiec wrote: >... I'm with Dave. I won't buy products that >fit this pricing model, because that's my way of voting with my wallet. I admire your conviction. I assume that you also don't patronize any airlines. They notoriously vary prices for the same seat on the same flight over an 8:1 range. Most _industrial_strength_ software pricing is tied to concurrent users, number of seats, etc. Look at the Major Databases and Business Critical Operating Systems. It seems a reasonable way to put the product into small users hands at lower cost, while generating enough revenue from large users to support future development. I may or may not agree with Lyris pricing model, but I will defend their (and my) right to price products any way they want. Each of us can choose to purchase them under those conditions, or go elsewhere. IMHO this thread has outlived its useful life. Lets here more on the technical merits. Don -------------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Loughlin donl@smcs.com SSSS M M CCCC SSSS Super Micro Computer Systems S MM MM C S 6 Essex Drive SSSS M M M C SSSS Hauppauge NY 11788 S M M C S +1-516-582-3404 FAX +1-516-234-6943 SSSS M M CCCC SSSS -------------------------------------------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 19:24:58 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id TAA28400 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:16:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca (madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca [128.100.102.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id TAA28360 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:16:35 -0800 (PST) From: rasmus@vex.net Received: from krone.lerdorf.on.ca (krone.lerdorf.on.ca [207.164.141.2]) by madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca (8.7.4/8.7.1) with SMTP id WAA00469; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:16:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:16:27 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rasmus@vex.net Subject: Re: Lyris To: John Buckman cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199612011623.QAA18226@synergy.transbay.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Also, though many list servers use a Reply-To header which points > back to the list, some people feel very strongly that this is a bad > thing. So, we will make Reply-To: a list-configurable setting in the > next Lyris version. I would hope that every single header would be user configurable. -Rasmus From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 19:27:52 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id TAA28393 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:16:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from synergy.transbay.net (synergy.transbay.net [207.105.6.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id TAA28347 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:16:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from kuno (jbuck133.transbay.net [207.105.7.133]) by synergy.transbay.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA18729; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:16:28 GMT Message-Id: <199612011916.TAA18729@synergy.transbay.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "John Buckman" Organization: Walter Shelby Group Ltd. To: Dave Crocker Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:14:34 +7 Subject: Aggregating on MX records CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > If the list manager is really clever, it will discover that the > physical machine to send to is ng.netgate.com and will try to > aggregate on that; but I doubt there are many recipients for > list-managers on that machine, either. Actually, that technique works quite well and is quite implementable. You'll get much better aggregation results if you aggregate based on the MX hosts rather than the physical hostname of the email address. A great many ISPs offer their corporate customers "virtual email domains", which exist only to offer a pretty email address with the customer's company name on it. Thus, a number of seemingly different domains might point to the same mail server as their primary MX host. Thus, if you cache the MX records of DNS lookups of your subscriber list, and aggregate according to those MX records, (mail.isp.net, as opposed the domain portion of the email address, say isp.net) you'll have a higher success rate, and save yourself a considerable amount of time in avoiding those DNS lookups on every subscriber for every message to the list. John john@shelby.com, Shelby Group Ltd., http://www.shelby.com/ From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 20:28:09 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA01193 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:11:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id UAA01179 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jcook@localhost) by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id UAA16210; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:11:07 -0800 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:11:07 -0800 (PST) From: James Cook Subject: re: Lyris Feedback To: Mike Nolan cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199612020129.TAA25493@celery.tssi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Mike Nolan wrote: > > I thought I'd report back on some changes we're going to make to > > Lyris as a result of the feedback from this list. > > Since this is a a commercial product and you are using this list as a test > market without a beta agreement, where do we send our consulting fee > invoices to? This is no test market. This is an exchange of ideas about software design. We are the beneficiaires of any smart changes which occur as a result. Actually, when I first posted a query here inviting comment on features of Lyris vs. Listproc and Lsoft, there was modest response compared to the knowledge everyone in fact has. I asked John Buckman whether he was on this list, since he didn't respond to my queries here. He then joined the list to partipate in the exchange of technical information of comparative nature, as I requested, to improve on the level real detail and dialogue. He then posted a liberal amount of detail lacking prior thereto, and proceeded to get flamed like hell. I think all list managers do themselves a real disservice by acting like that. Think about it. We all probably feel there is no perfect list management software available, just some better and some worse. Perhaps we all wish that more vendors would come up with more offerings which include more of the stuff just the way we all want. Someone has to spend the time and money to get there, and over a considerable period of time. Like everyone, they check the market, gather feedback, and adjust over time. John Buckman didn't come here to ask for product design advice. He came here to provide the information that we were discussing in a thread, and which I suggest he contribute to. That is how it *should be* if we're going to see progress, especially customer oriented progress. We've just seen a very remarkable event here. A new vendor on the market, working seriously on a new offering, has explanied their rationale, gotten feedback, and plans to implement just what folks asked for here. That is pretty darn nice in my book. I hope it applies to other important features as well. How else are we going to move toward better options? I think it is a disservice to express our ideas of what is good and bad design with the almost hot headed, flame like remarks. If a vendor is willing to listen and explain rationales, why not welcome it and communicate in cooperative spirit. Why try to burn folks up? What we all really need is very clear thinking, exchange of info for the sake of solid, good change. Let's encourage that. Not throw mud in their faces. If you want to succeed in vendors into "oblivion", then you'll succed most likely in finding products of inferior quality, less customer and real world oriented, on the market. And some of them may screw up some of your work life more than if you could have influenced design early on. My suggestion would be to thank the Lyris folks for laying out the info, for implementing at least one important change right away, and then see what other important considerations should take place. What if it results in some great new products over the next year? James Cook From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 20:44:58 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA02050 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:32:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from wildride.schoneal.com (wildride.schoneal.com [206.81.38.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id UAA02043 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:32:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from meo@localhost) by wildride.schoneal.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) id WAA09805; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:32:58 -0600 Message-Id: <199612020432.WAA09805@wildride.schoneal.com> Subject: Re: Aggregating on MX records To: jbuckman@shelby.com (John Buckman) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:32:58 -0600 (CST) Cc: dcrocker@brandenburg.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199612011916.TAA18729@synergy.transbay.net> from "John Buckman" at Dec 1, 96 07:14:34 pm From: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Reply-To: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Organization: Schober O'Neal, Inc / Net Ads X-WWW-URL: http://www.schoneal.com/~meo/ X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk John Buckman said... | |A great many ISPs offer their corporate customers "virtual email |domains", which exist only to offer a pretty email address with the |customer's company name on it. Thus, a number of seemingly |different domains might point to the same mail server as their |primary MX host. | |Thus, if you cache the MX records of DNS lookups of your subscriber |list, and aggregate according to those MX records, (mail.isp.net, as |opposed the domain portion of the email address, say isp.net) you'll |have a higher success rate, and save yourself a considerable amount |of time in avoiding those DNS lookups on every subscriber for every |message to the list. So what happens when a mailhost reroutes mail based on the domain? For instance, webmaster@foo.com and webmaster@bar.com might be different addresses, where foo.com and bar.com are virtual domains on the same system. -Miles From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 20:48:09 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA02176 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:36:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from izzy4.izzy.net (izzy4.izzy.net [198.108.102.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id UAA02169 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:35:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from UUatbbs@localhost) by izzy4.izzy.net (8.8.3/8.6.9) id XAA25808 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:31:53 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: izzy4.izzy.net: UUatbbs set sender to atbbs!dbsmith using -f >Received: by atbbs.com (0.99.960714) id AA00734; 01 Dec 96 23:34:52 -0500 From: dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) Date: 01 Dec 96 22:41:16 -0500 Subject: Re: Re[6]: Lyris Message-ID: References: <1.5.4.32.19961202002658.006b0dc4@inforamp.net> Organization: American Tune BBS To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk DL>To: brian@ilinx.bctel.net DL>From: David Lloyd-Jones DL>Subject: Re: Re[6]: Lyris DL>At 12:56 PM 12/1/96 -0800, Brian J. Murrell wrote: DL>>from the quill of dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) on scroll DL>> DL>>> If the product is worth X, why is a person who fully utilizes the DL>>> product paying Y? DL>> DL>>Thank-you. You have hit the nail square on the head. DL>And the answer is simple enough for a child to understand: Nobody is forcing DL>them to pay Y; they are only likely to pay Y if it is in fact worth enough DL>more than Y to them in their judgement to change from what they were doing DL>before. What percentage of mailling list software companies use exactly the same sort of pricing structure? So, what was that about choice, again? ___ X SLMR 2.1a X Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. -- >> David B. Smith Email sysop@atbbs.com, dbsmith@izzy.net >> Sysop, American Tune BBS "The cure for all the ills of Democracy >> is more Democracy!" -- NY Gov. Al Smith >> >> My views are sometimes not even my own, much less anyone else's. >> My employers don't necessarily speak for me, either, 'natch. From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 20:55:08 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA02449 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:46:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id UAA02266 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:39:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 29459 invoked by uid 305); 2 Dec 1996 04:39:28 -0000 Message-ID: <19961202043928.29458.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: James Cook cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Lyris Feedback References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <29448.849501566.1@uRTH.ACSu.BuFFALO.EDu> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 23:39:26 -0500 From: Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk perhaps you have some vested interest in lyris. we do not. we will not accrue any benefit. -------- In reply to: This is no test market. This is an exchange of ideas about software design. We are the beneficiaires of any smart changes which occur as a result. --------------------- -- paul From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:02:58 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA02438 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:45:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from wildride.schoneal.com (wildride.schoneal.com [206.81.38.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id UAA02431 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:45:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from meo@localhost) by wildride.schoneal.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) id WAA09874 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:47:43 -0600 Message-Id: <199612020447.WAA09874@wildride.schoneal.com> Subject: re: Lyris Feedback To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:47:43 -0600 (CST) From: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Reply-To: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Organization: Schober O'Neal, Inc / Net Ads X-WWW-URL: http://www.schoneal.com/~meo/ X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk James Cook said... |This is no test market. This is an exchange of ideas about software |design. We are the beneficiaires of any smart changes which occur as a |result. ... |John Buckman didn't come here to ask for product design advice. He came |here to provide the information that we were discussing in a thread, and |which I suggest he contribute to. I have to agree. I was personally appalled at a couple of the decisions in the product, but then again, that's why we have competition. The Lyris marketing *did* sound rather hypish, but John has explained things quite well, and I understand their claims (I would suggest that if they haven't already done so, they get some of this rationale and explanation onto their web pages - for those of us who have grown jaded when everyone's email product is better than everyone else's). Finally, I was impressd with John's responses under fire. John, you handled yourself with commendable reserve. I'm not a fan of the pricing strategy you folks have chosen, but that's what free markets are all about - you can try it and see how it works. Thanks for the info, and for taking our comments into account. -Miles meo@schoneal.com From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:07:34 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA02844 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:52:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotstar.net (hotstar.net [204.191.136.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id UAA02822 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:51:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from widgette (ts52-15.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.142.35]) by hotstar.net (8.7.3/8.7) with SMTP id XAA16731; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:53:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961202045405.006c5d80@inforamp.net> X-Sender: dlj@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 23:54:05 -0500 To: James Cook From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: re: Lyris Feedback Cc: Mike Nolan , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:11 PM 12/1/96 -0800, James Cook wrote: > >On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Mike Nolan wrote: > >> > I thought I'd report back on some changes we're going to make to >> > Lyris as a result of the feedback from this list. >> >> Since this is a a commercial product and you are using this list as a test >> market without a beta agreement, where do we send our consulting fee >> invoices to? > >This is no test market. This is an exchange of ideas about software >design. We are the beneficiaires of any smart changes which occur as a >result. I've been struck by the extreme sourness of many of the posts on this topic (as well as by the extreme stupidity of some of the economic theories presented). This is an offline newsgroup for professional concerns; evaluating stuff that isn't on the market yet is a professional concern. The Lyris people posting have struck me as modest, cooperative, and genuinely inqusitive about how to do things right. These are rare qualities among programmers, which is a major reason there has been so little positive result of the three trillion dollars invested in computers so far. I think they should have been made welcome -- and where people had criticisms to make of the software, those criticisms could have been made with good manners and good cheer, instead of the bitter carping we have seen. -dlj. From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:10:04 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA03212 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:00:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from garcon.unicom.com (garcon.unicom.com [192.108.105.37]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA03184 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:00:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from chip@localhost) by garcon.unicom.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26476; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:59:50 -0600 (CST) From: Chip Rosenthal Message-Id: <199612020459.WAA26476@garcon.unicom.com> Subject: Re: Aggregating on MX records To: meo@schoneal.com Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:59:49 -0600 (CST) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199612020432.WAA09805@wildride.schoneal.com> from "Miles O'Neal" at Dec 01, 1996 10:32:58 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0a10] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Miles O'Neal writes: > So what happens when a mailhost reroutes mail > based on the domain? For instance, webmaster@foo.com > and webmaster@bar.com might be different addresses, > where foo.com and bar.com are virtual domains on the > same system. Exactly as what would happen otherwise -- except you've gotten the message to the MX host (which is where I'd presume this rerouting occurs) with a single SMTP transaction instead of two. -- Chip Rosenthal * Unicom Systems Development * URL: http://www.unicom.com/ * 4868D8BE10C86BDE 6017000BA783998E Helmet good. Law bad. From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:13:29 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA02804 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:51:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from falcon.inetnebr.com (falcon.inetnebr.com [199.184.119.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id UAA02765 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:51:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from carrot.tssi.com (root@gateway.tssi.com [198.147.197.29]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA16473 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:51:34 -0600 (CST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (carrot.tssi.com) by carrot.tssi.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA12567 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:51:29 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA06673 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:51:27 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199612020451.WAA06673@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: Lyris Feedback To: jcook@netcom.com (James Cook) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:47:28 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "James Cook" at Dec 1, 96 08:11:07 pm Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Mike Nolan wrote: > > > > I thought I'd report back on some changes we're going to make to > > > Lyris as a result of the feedback from this list. > > > > Since this is a a commercial product and you are using this list as a test > > market without a beta agreement, where do we send our consulting fee > > invoices to? > > This is no test market. This is an exchange of ideas about software > design. We are the beneficiaires of any smart changes which occur as a > result. We're also the primary market for the product, and at least initially the material on Lyris struck me as a whole lot more like marketing than an 'exchange of ideas.' > He then posted a liberal amount of detail lacking prior thereto, and > proceeded to get flamed like hell. I think all list managers do > themselves a real disservice by acting like that. Considering that his early posts were rather haughty (we do it THIS way because that's the RIGHT way, etc.), I thought the flames were a too acidic (as was my comment above) but at least somewhat deserved. It became an exchange of ideas only afterwards. I'm glad to to see that the developers are taking at least SOME of our feedback to heart, perhaps their marketers will, too. Hopefully the discussion will continue, and Lyris will benefit from it. List managers are probably bad examples of net citizens, which is ironic considering we tend to spend an inordinate amount of time convincing others to be good examples. We all tend to sermonize, and not many of us are net gods, except perhaps in our own minds. I posted my note because I thought the tone of the announcement that he sent out still smelled of 'marketing hype', but I've been running a fever since Wednesday so I'm probably cranky as hell right now. As I said in another post, I don't see myself as a qualified prospect for the product, because I don't have a revenue stream from my lists to support the cost. Given that it took me MONTHS to get my current list software to the state I wanted it, a 30 day 'free trial' isn't much of a trial at all, IMHO. I might, if I thought I had the time and other resources, try out the crippled edition at some time in the future, though. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:13:35 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA03319 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:04:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from synergy.transbay.net (synergy.transbay.net [207.105.6.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA03310 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:04:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from kuno (jbuck133.transbay.net [207.105.7.133]) by synergy.transbay.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA19087; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:04:12 GMT Message-Id: <199612012104.VAA19087@synergy.transbay.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "John Buckman" Organization: Walter Shelby Group Ltd. To: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:01:08 +7 Subject: Re: Aggregating on MX records CC: dcrocker@brandenburg.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > So what happens when a mailhost reroutes mail based on the domain? > For instance, webmaster@foo.com and webmaster@bar.com might be > different addresses, where foo.com and bar.com are virtual domains > on the same system. It wouldn't change anything, since the same messages are communicated as with domain-aggregation. Let's say bar.com and foo.com are both virtual domains at isp.net, and that isp.net has mail server called mail.isp.net and mail2.isp.net. bar.com and foo.com have the same MX information, namely that the primary MX host is mail.isp.net, and secondary host is mail2.isp.net. Now, let's say webmaster@foo.com and webmaster@bar.com both belong a a list called "test-l", and a single email message has been sent to that this. With domain-based aggregate mailing, the mailer would see webmaster@foo.com and webmaster@bar.com as unrelated email addresses, and make two separate DNS inquiries, and two separate SMTP sessions (and connections) in order to transmit those two messages. With MX-based aggregate mailing, what happens depends on whether the two messages to send are identical, or different. If they are two different messages, then the SMTP sessions are the same as with domain-based aggregation, except that the two messages are sent in serial, in one TCP/IP session, rather than as two sessions, so you gain something in starting up fewer TCP/IP connections. If the two messages are identical, then MX-record aggregation really improves things, because you can add an extra RCPT TO:<> to the first message, for the 2nd recipient, and you'll have saved almost 1/2 the bandwidth. --- Perhaps someone can answer this question: do DNS servers cache MX records? Obviously, most DNS servers cache hostname->IP lookups, but I was wondering if they cached MX entries as well. Or, are there any mailers (or patched mailers) which cache MX records? It seems like an obvious place to increase efficiency, especially with busy mailing lists, so I'd be suprised if some mailer (MTA) didn't do this. John john@shelby.com, Shelby Group Ltd., http://www.shelby.com/ From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:25:04 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA04224 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:22:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from wildride.schoneal.com (wildride.schoneal.com [206.81.38.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA04217 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:22:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from meo@localhost) by wildride.schoneal.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) id XAA10108 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:24:15 -0600 Message-Id: <199612020524.XAA10108@wildride.schoneal.com> Subject: vested interest? To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:24:15 -0600 (CST) From: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Reply-To: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Organization: Schober O'Neal, Inc / Net Ads X-WWW-URL: http://www.schoneal.com/~meo/ X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Paul Graham said... |perhaps you have some vested interest in lyris. we do not. we will not |accrue any benefit. I'd say that if lyris has become a more standards-compliant (if only de facto standards), if it's more net-friendly, then we have gained. And it's not like anyone held a gun to anyone else's head, forcing discussion. -Miles "Nobody move! I have a delete key, and I know how to use it!" From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:32:48 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA04195 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:21:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from wildride.schoneal.com (wildride.schoneal.com [206.81.38.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA04188 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:21:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from meo@localhost) by wildride.schoneal.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) id XAA10099 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:23:29 -0600 Message-Id: <199612020523.XAA10099@wildride.schoneal.com> Subject: aggregate delivery To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:23:29 -0600 (CST) From: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Reply-To: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Organization: Schober O'Neal, Inc / Net Ads X-WWW-URL: http://www.schoneal.com/~meo/ X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Miles said: > So what happens when a mailhost reroutes mail based on the domain? > For instance, webmaster@foo.com and webmaster@bar.com might be > different addresses, where foo.com and bar.com are virtual domains > on the same system. John Buckman replied: |It wouldn't change anything, since the same messages are |communicated as with domain-aggregation. |... |Now, let's say webmaster@foo.com and webmaster@bar.com both belong a |a list called "test-l", and a single email message has been sent to |that this. I wasn't clear - sorry. Let's say that they are aliased to different people. webmaster@foo.com could be redirected to foo@isp.com, while webmaster@bar.com is redirected to bar@isp.com (assuming foo.com and bar.com are both VDs at isp.com). As I understand it, lyris would attempt to send both of these to webmaster@mailhost.isp.com . Or does it simply connect to mailhost.isp.com but use SMTP TO fields of webmaster@foo.com and webmaster@bar.com ? -Miles From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:37:53 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA04071 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:18:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA04064 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:18:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jcook@localhost) by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id VAA26166; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:18:41 -0800 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:18:40 -0800 (PST) From: James Cook Subject: Re: Lyris Feedback cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <19961202043928.29458.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Paul Graham wrote: > perhaps you have some vested interest in lyris. we do not. we will not > accrue any benefit. > > -------- In reply to: > This is no test market. This is an exchange of ideas about software > design. We are the beneficiaires of any smart changes which occur as a > result. My point, if not already clear, was that this dialogue compares the technical functions and flaws of a variety of mail mangement programs, including Lyris. Smart changes made to Lyris or any other program it competes with as a result of such detailed discussion benefits anyone using those programs, and aids many of us in evaluating and managing software and lists we now have. People have sent me private mail mentioning that this has been educational for them, and touched on points of importance which are new to them. I don't have any interest in Lyris stock. I don't know anyone there except John Buckman based upon one phone call to the company. I've had more contact and general interest in the Lsoft product. I'm careful enough to value open discussion about competing products among others who know and care about this stuff a lot. There is no reason to hassle me for merely seeking perspectives on these products, and for mentioning the value of positive diaogue between vendors and customers in general. James Cook From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:39:53 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA04932 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:35:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA04922 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:35:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kynn@localhost) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.8/8.6.9) id VAA10243; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:32:20 -0800 From: Kynn Bartlett Message-Id: <199612020532.VAA10243@ayla.idyllmtn.com> Subject: Re: Lyris Feedback To: nolan@tssi.com Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:32:19 -0800 (PST) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199612020451.WAA06673@celery.tssi.com> from "Mike Nolan" at Dec 1, 96 10:47:28 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Maybe the Lyrix developers, and those interested in giving feedback on this topic, should form a...mailing list?...to discuss it. Maybe there needs to be a mailing list for MLM development? We all _do_ know how to make mailing lists, right? Then again, list-managers hasn't had this much active traffic for months. :) --Kynn Bartlett, Idyllmtn Postmaster and Mailing List Manager for the HTML Writers Guild From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:56:31 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA05215 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:41:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotstar.net (hotstar.net [204.191.136.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id VAA05205 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:41:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from widgette (ts52-15.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.142.35]) by hotstar.net (8.7.3/8.7) with SMTP id AAA17043; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 00:43:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961202054356.006aab5c@inforamp.net> X-Sender: dlj@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 00:43:56 -0500 To: dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: Re: Re[6]: Lyris Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:41 PM 12/1/96 -0500, David B. Smith wrote: > >DL>To: brian@ilinx.bctel.net >DL>From: David Lloyd-Jones >DL>Subject: Re: Re[6]: Lyris > >DL>At 12:56 PM 12/1/96 -0800, Brian J. Murrell wrote: >DL>>from the quill of dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) on scroll >DL>> >DL>>> If the product is worth X, why is a person who fully utilizes the >DL>>> product paying Y? >DL>> >DL>>Thank-you. You have hit the nail square on the head. > >DL>And the answer is simple enough for a child to understand: Nobody is forcing >DL>them to pay Y; they are only likely to pay Y if it is in fact worth enough >DL>more than Y to them in their judgement to change from what they were doing >DL>before. > >What percentage of mailling list software companies use exactly the same >sort of pricing structure? > >So, what was that about choice, again? David Smith seems to miss the point: no matter what pricing structure _anybody_ uses, you are not forced to buy from them. You can sit up all night sending your e-mail out one item at a time if you like. The choice is yours. -dlj. From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 23:55:12 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA11417 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:46:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from synergy.transbay.net (synergy.transbay.net [207.105.6.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id XAA11407 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:46:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from kuno (jbuck133.transbay.net [207.105.7.133]) by synergy.transbay.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA19567; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:46:21 GMT Message-Id: <199612012346.XAA19567@synergy.transbay.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "John Buckman" Organization: Walter Shelby Group Ltd. To: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal), list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:44:28 +7 Subject: Re: aggregate delivery X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Or does it simply connect to mailhost.isp.com but use SMTP TO > fields of webmaster@foo.com and webmaster@bar.com ? Exactly. BTW, we're in the research & test stage with MX-based aggregation, it's not present in the current shipping version of Lyris. The current version uses traditional domain-based aggregation. In order to do MX aggregation correctly, the mailer has to keep an up-to-date database of MX hosts for each subscriber, which takes time and disk space. We have to implement some benchmarks to establish in which cases it is worthwhile, and how much speed benefit the added complexity actually yields. So far, the biggest speed benefit is in having an in-memory DNS cache of subscriber's MX records. John john@shelby.com, Shelby Group Ltd., http://www.shelby.com/ From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 02:10:10 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id BAA20462 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 01:59:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id BAA20441; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 01:59:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612020959.BAA20441@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <13.4E05B93A@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:59:08 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 8515; Mon, 02 Dec 96 10:52:38 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 1578; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:52:38 +0100 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:47:49 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Lyris To: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM, Dave Crocker cc: Jeff Wasilko , John Buckman , Chip Rosenthal , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:42:57 -0800 (PST) from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:42:57 -0800 (PST) Dave Crocker said: > well, saving on the number of connection setups DOES count. Fine, but name a "high end" MTA that doesn't do that. It's a bit like touting the presence of airbags in your luxury car; they all have that. When comparing MTAs, you wouldn't even mention connection reuse unless it were absent in one of the products being tested. > it occurs to me that the counter to some of our complaints about >one message per receipient is that many lists have little aggregation by >domain or host, That's not true. There is massive aggregation to domains like AOL.COM, which also account for a large fraction of the user base of most mailing lists. Eric From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 04:25:09 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id EAA25700 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 04:21:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from itw.com (rsk.itw.com [206.138.122.70]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id EAA25692 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 04:21:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by itw.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id HAA04670 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 07:22:24 -0500 (EST) From: Rich Kulawiec Message-Id: <199612021222.HAA04670@itw.com> Subject: Re: Re[4]: Lyris To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 07:22:23 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <9612012113.aa25180@polaris.smcs.com> from "Donald Loughlin" at Dec 01, 1996 09:13:06 PM Reply-To: rsk@itw.com Organization: Ditka Diplomatic Studies Institute X-Last-River: Lehigh, PA X-Last-CD: Duncan Sheik, "Duncan Sheik" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0b1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Most _industrial_strength_ software pricing is tied to concurrent users, >number of seats, etc. Look at the Major Databases and Business Critical >Operating Systems. I use Linux for business-critical applications: it's free, and I find it's more robust than anything else I can lay my hands on with the possible exception of BSDI Unix. I don't use major databases (e.g. Oracle, Informix) because I find them completely bloated overkill for the applications that I need to work with; I find that I can handle *quite* large quantities of data faster by thoughtful application of much simpler tools. >It seems a reasonable way to put the product into small users hands at >lower cost, while generating enough revenue from large users to >support future development. Then I think that you and I have what amounts to a basic philosophical disagreement. I think software should be priced like a can of beans; you don't (as far as I can tell). Rich Kulawiec rsk@itw.com From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 06:55:35 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA06127 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 06:48:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id GAA06120 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 06:47:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 12654 invoked by uid 305); 2 Dec 1996 14:47:45 -0000 Message-ID: <19961202144744.12648.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: James Cook cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Lyris Feedback References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <12618.849538060.1@uRTH.ACSu.BuFFALO.EDu> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 09:47:40 -0500 From: Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk i don't think so. to be frank i've been developing the impression that you're a shill for lyris since you don't seem to be aware of things that i'd expect someone doing legitimate research into a high end MLM to have discovered. let me apologize for that misapprehesion. however lyris is playing in a rather special area and for them to be ignorant of the issues raised in this discussion is a bit frightening. it says to me that they're interested in the small/personal computer market and that they're taking the same approach to interfaces favored by microsoft -- our way is the best, we don't need to understand how other people do things and the rest of you better get used to it. -------- In reply to: My point, if not already clear, was that this dialogue compares the technical functions and flaws of a variety of mail mangement programs, including Lyris. --------------------- -- paul pjg@acsu.Buffalo.EDU |public keys at: pjg@ubvm | http://urth.acsu.Buffalo.EDU/~pjg/key.html if the above contains opinions they are mine unless marked otherwise. From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 08:12:07 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA11284 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 07:56:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.clark.net (mail.clark.net [168.143.0.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id HAA11231 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 07:56:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from clark.net (indigo@explorer.clark.net [168.143.0.7]) by mail.clark.net (8.7.3/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA24538 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:56:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (indigo@localhost) by clark.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id KAA19557 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:56:28 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: clark.net: indigo owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:56:27 -0500 (EST) From: Deb To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Lyris In-Reply-To: <199611281627.QAA13611@synergy.transbay.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 28 Nov 1996, John Buckman wrote: > The main reason we rewrite the To: is that people often have > multiple email addresses, with forwarding instructions so that email > goes to different places it was originally sent. In such a case, the > recipient of list-generated email message doesn't know what email > address is registered at the list server. Perhaps rather than changing the To: header (in Pine, that has the annoying effect of causing the message to appear as personal rather than list mail), users fond of subscribing from multiple addresses could learn how to read the Received: headers. -- Deb \ indigo@clark.net From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 10:27:34 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA22882 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:21:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from sol.tins.net (sol.tins.net [205.173.230.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id KAA22843 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:21:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mgg@localhost) by sol.tins.net (8.8.2/8.8.2) id KAA16491; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:18:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:18:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612021818.KAA16491@sol.tins.net> From: Mark Galbraith To: jbuckman@shelby.com CC: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: <199611281627.QAA13611@synergy.transbay.net> (jbuckman@shelby.com) Subject: Re: Lyris Organization: Triad InterNet Services X-Mailer: Emacs-19.32 X-Attribution: mgg Reply-to: mgg@sol.tins.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.78) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "John" == John Buckman writes: >> Unfortunately, this is a gratuitous rewriting of the original >> poster's message. If I address mail to foo@somewhere.com, I >> expect messages to arrive at the user saying that. If you wish >> to do address detection, put it in a user-defined header. John> The main reason we rewrite the To: is that people often have John> multiple email addresses, with forwarding instructions so that email John> goes to different places it was originally sent. In such a case, the John> recipient of list-generated email message doesn't know what email John> address is registered at the list server. Can't the savvy user just look through the 'Received' headers to find the lines that contain the "for" value. That's where I would look for the address the delivery was to. The To: header should reflect the list address. This makes it work the same as all the other major list software out there, and makes the job of filtering much easier. If you need to add the delivery address in a header, put it in a user-defined header. And anyway, why would your program generate 10,000 different messages for 10,000 subscribers? Wouldn't it be more efficient to group deliveries of multiple addressees at the same location? This would cut down on network traffic and workload on your system. -- Mark Galbraith Member of The HTML Writers Guild Engineer, Internet Services http://www.hwg.org/ Triad Systems Corporation (PGP Fingerprint=1CB9 7481 AD5C 5709 690B AC09 7F65 D6F6) From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 11:11:38 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA26962 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:06:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from synergy.transbay.net (synergy.transbay.net [207.105.6.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id LAA26917 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:06:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from kuno (jbuck133.transbay.net [207.105.7.133]) by synergy.transbay.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA21338; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:05:53 GMT Message-Id: <199612021105.LAA21338@synergy.transbay.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "John Buckman" Organization: Walter Shelby Group Ltd. To: Mark Galbraith Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:04:02 +7 Subject: Re: Lyris CC: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > And anyway, why would your program generate 10,000 different messages > for 10,000 subscribers? Wouldn't it be more efficient to group > deliveries of multiple addressees at the same location? This would cut > down on network traffic and workload on your system. Yes, you are right that it is more efficient to send exactly the same message to everyone on the list. However, that technique creates another problem, that of analyzing error mail. If every user gets exactly the same message, the task of analyzing bounced messages is a difficult one, as you need to write a parser which is savvy to all the different mail systems out there, since there are so many different kinds of error messages. You also need to constantly update that error-analyzer, since error message formats are constantly changing. As a list owner, it is fairly common to receive error mail which bears almost no clues to which user bounced the message. Or, the clues are visible to a trained (human) list owner, but very difficult for a program to recognize. But, in almost all cases, bounced mail includes the header of the bounced message in the error message. So, if you include a unique key in the header of each outgoing message, which identifies each subscriber, that unique key will most likely appear in the error mail as well. This makes error processing much easier, and (in our experience) more consistently accurate, since you only have to look for that subscriber key to determine the bouncing subscriber. The feedback we received when designing Lyris was that error mail is a major problem when running mailing lists, and if there were a way to effectively and automatically process error mail, it was worth doing. Because there is an efficiency penalty with this technique, we decided to write our own mailer to help make up for some of the efficiency lost. Now, you may disagree with us. Perhaps it is your opinion that your list server handles error mail just fine, and the efficiency trade-off for improved error detection isn't worth it. If that's the case, Lyris isn't for you. BTW, I believe L-Soft uses a similar technique, except that LISTSERV sends a periodic "probe" message (which has L-Soft information about their probe technique), with every probe message being unique, and uses that to detect bad addresses. The advantage of their technique is that it doesn't have an efficiency penalty on general list traffic, because it is only used occasionally. The disadvantage is that their technique requires an intrusive "probe" message to be sent to every subscriber. The advantage to L-Soft is that every subscriber of every list using this technique gets a message explaining how great L-Soft LISTSERV is. Also, our experience is that occasional probing does not work well, because it is susceptible to over-reacting to transient failures. Disclaimer: my only knowledge of L-Soft's "probe" technique is in reading the probe message text that I've received as a member of lists using L-Soft LISTSERV. If I got my facts wrong, I'm not trying to deceive, I just don't have access to the full information. John john@shelby.com, Shelby Group Ltd., http://www.shelby.com/ From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 11:56:30 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA29574 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:30:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from falcon.inetnebr.com (falcon.inetnebr.com [199.184.119.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA29563 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:30:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from carrot.tssi.com (root@gateway.tssi.com [198.147.197.29]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA28880; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:30:27 -0600 (CST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (carrot.tssi.com) by carrot.tssi.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA22813; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:30:21 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA13661; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:30:18 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199612021930.NAA13661@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: Lyris To: mgg@sol.tins.net Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:30:18 -0600 (CST) Cc: jbuckman@shelby.com, rogerk@QueerNet.ORG, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199612021818.KAA16491@sol.tins.net> from "Mark Galbraith" at Dec 2, 96 10:18:14 am Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Can't the savvy user just look through the 'Received' headers to find > the lines that contain the "for" value. That's where I would look for > the address the delivery was to. There is no guarantee that the 'Received' headers contain that information, or the right information. There are THREE different 'for' addresses in the 'Received' headers of the post I'm responding to, and I've seen other e-mail arrive here with NO 'for' address in the 'Received' headers. (Is there a standard for this header? If so, it is apparently ignored by some MTA's, but unfortunately that shouldn't strike any of us as unusual.) -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 13:05:28 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA06909 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 12:43:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id MAA06892 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 12:43:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612022043.MAA06892@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <10.48DC0667@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 21:43:14 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 2689; Mon, 02 Dec 96 21:36:44 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 0121; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 21:36:44 +0100 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 20:12:52 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Lyris To: Mark Galbraith , John Buckman cc: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:04:02 +7 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:04:02 +7 John Buckman said: >If every user gets exactly the same message, the task of analyzing >bounced messages is a difficult one, as you need to write a parser which >is savvy to all the different mail systems out there, since there are so >many different kinds of error messages. Well, I don't think anyone on this forum ever claimed that writing a good list manager was an easy task. If it were easy, there would be no room for commercial products :-) >But, in almost all cases, bounced mail includes the header of the >bounced message in the error message. Or rather, whatever the bouncing MTA calls a "header". For many systems, this is actually what is left of the header after converting to the local proprietary mail system. This may not include much more than date, origin, recipient and subject. >The advantage of their technique is that it doesn't have an efficiency >penalty on general list traffic, because it is only used occasionally. >The disadvantage is that their technique requires an intrusive "probe" >message to be sent to every subscriber. The advantage to L-Soft is that >every subscriber of every list using this technique gets a message >explaining how great L-Soft LISTSERV is. The advantage to L-Soft is that this technique scales up and allows customers to keep running very large lists on PC systems while taking advantage of the new feature, which increases the number of licenses L-Soft can hope to sell. It also keeps resource usage at the receiving sites and bandwidth usage where they are today. To give you an idea, it is estimated that AOL receives some 1.5M messages a day from LISTSERV. Something tells me that AOL would not be very happy if these messages were fed as 1.5M separate connections with one RCPT TO: each, especially if this happened overnight following the shipment of a new version of LISTSERV and there was no way to back out. Upgrading mail servers in that kind of scenario could take days, as new hardware might be needed. I'm only mentioning AOL because it's the largest online provider, I expect that the problem would hold for any other large provider (possibly even more than AOL, which is very serious about keeping the mail servers up to speed). It wouldn't be good for L-Soft or for the mailing list community in general if a new version of the code crashed a major online provider just because resource impact at the receiving end had not been considered in the design of a major new feature, or had been brushed off as "not our problem". It would only lead to managers decreasing mailing list budgets (hardware and software) in favour of usenet, web BBSes, etc. Call me old fashioned, but I feel that Internet vendors have an obligation to do things "the right way", even when this is not the optimal solution $$$ wise. To take an extreme case, a very simple way to suppress all bounces is to send all postings with MAIL FROM:<>. With enough hype you will actually be able to sell this to naive customers as a revolution in mailing list management and make money while cutting development costs. Meanwhile your competitors will be working hard implementing solutions that actually solve problems but only look more complicated and thus inferior to the users. Over time the lists will end up having hundreds or thousands of bad addresses that never get cleaned up, which leads to a waste of bandwidth and resource usage at both sending and receiving end and, guess what? It means more license revenues as the mailing list host gets slower and a second machine is bought to spread the load. The vendor wins and the community loses. Anyway, to get back to the matter at hand, L-Soft recommends replacing the "message explaining how great L-Soft LISTSERV is" with a FAQ or similar information. See the manuals for more details. Finally, in version 1.8d there will be an entirely new probe mechanism that will further reduce the resource impact of bounce-free list management based on the info we collected from 1.8c sites. >Also, our experience is that occasional probing does not work well, >because it is susceptible to over-reacting to transient failures. John, this problem was discovered a long time ago and has already been addressed in all sorts of list management packages, including LISTSERV. I'm surprised that you didn't know that, given the number of lists on which it has been discussed. Eric From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 13:10:55 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA08380 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 12:56:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA08336 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 12:56:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 23666 invoked by uid 305); 2 Dec 1996 20:55:53 -0000 Message-ID: <19961202205553.23665.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: "John Buckman" cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Lyris References: <199612021105.LAA21338@synergy.transbay.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <23654.849560151.1@uRTH.ACSu.BuFFALO.EDu> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 15:55:51 -0500 From: Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk as an alternative you could use the qmail+qlist approach. every message sent is tagged the way lsoft probe messages are tagged. no extra messages but the same level of bounce management. -------- In reply to: So, if you include a unique key in the header of each outgoing message, which identifies each subscriber, that unique key will most likely appear in the error mail as well. --------------------- -- paul From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 13:55:51 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA12783 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:42:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs.bu.edu (CS.BU.EDU [128.197.13.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id NAA12768 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:41:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from csa.bu.edu by cs.bu.edu (8.6.10/Spike-2.1) id QAA06156; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:41:48 -0500 From: tasos@cs.bu.edu (Anastasios Kotsikonas) Received: by csa.bu.edu (8.8.3/Spike-2.1) id QAA26754; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:41:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199612022141.QAA26754@csa.bu.edu> Subject: Re: LSOFT's Listserv vs. LYRIS To: Brent@greatcircle.com (Brent Chapman) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:41:34 -0500 (EST) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: from "Brent Chapman" at Nov 29, 96 07:30:12 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > At 9:18 AM +0100 11/27/96, Eric Thomas wrote: > >On Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:58:55 -0500 (EST) Merrill Cook > >said: > > > >>The pricing I've seen suggests that they want to make money selling a > >>few copies. If they wanted to sell lots they wouldn't be charging so > >>much. > > > >LISTSERV Lite goes for $500-2000 OTC (corporate), with a free edition for > >non commercial use. > > > >It isn't possible to sell "lots" of copies of a mailing list manager, at > >least not in the meaning normally associated with PC software. There are > >thousands of copies of the freebies in use, not millions, not hundreds of > >thousands, not even tens of thousands. > > Actually, I think the number is up into the tens of thousands by now. > There have been about 1500 registered installations of Majordomo 1.94 since > it was released a little over a month ago. I think we can safely correct. listproc 6.0c has over 1200 registered installations at this point; and I have ran into unregistered sites myself, so the number is higher for 6.0 and I suspect for majordomo. tasos From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 16:40:53 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA27091 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:33:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from tymix.Tymnet.COM (tymix.tymnet.com [131.146.2.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA27084 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:33:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by tymix.Tymnet.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07681; Mon, 2 Dec 96 16:33:17 PST Received: from tardis by tymix.Tymnet.COM (in.smtpd); 2 Dec 0 16:33:16 PDT Received: by tardis.tymnet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07818; Mon, 2 Dec 96 16:33:08 PST Date: Mon, 2 Dec 96 16:33:08 PST From: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) Message-Id: <9612030033.AA07818@tardis.tymnet.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: "Re[6]: subject" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In reference to the subject lines of Subject Re: Subject Re[2]: Subject Re[4]: Subject Re: Re[4]: Subject which mailer is responsible for the abomination of adding "[n]" after "Re:"? Isn't there an RFC that states "thou shalt not change 'Re:' to anything else"? -Joe From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 16:55:50 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA28192 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:45:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from tymix.Tymnet.COM (tymix.tymnet.com [131.146.2.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA28132 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:45:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by tymix.Tymnet.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA08172; Mon, 2 Dec 96 16:44:58 PST Received: from tardis by tymix.Tymnet.COM (in.smtpd); 2 Dec 0 16:44:58 PDT Received: by tardis.tymnet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07855; Mon, 2 Dec 96 16:44:56 PST Date: Mon, 2 Dec 96 16:44:56 PST From: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) Message-Id: <9612030044.AA07855@tardis.tymnet.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Lyris Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >> If you wish to do address detection, put it in a user-defined header. > > Can't the savvy user just look through the 'Received' headers to find > the lines that contain the "for" value. That's where I would look for > the address the delivery was to. That only works if there is a single recipient on the destination machine. When a single mail message is sent to user1@host.com and user2@host.com, the 'Received' headers will NOT have a 'for' line. This is true even when one of the users is included as part of a Bcc list, This misfeature makes it difficult for a POP client to reliably reroute messages that got dumped into a single mailbox. -Joe From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 18:40:33 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA08812 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 18:25:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from falcon.inetnebr.com (falcon.inetnebr.com [199.184.119.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id SAA08737 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 18:25:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from carrot.tssi.com (root@gateway.tssi.com [198.147.197.29]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA27972; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 20:25:05 -0600 (CST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (carrot.tssi.com) by carrot.tssi.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA27468; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 20:24:48 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA22567; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 17:03:52 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199612022303.RAA22567@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: Lyris To: ERIC@VM.SE.LSOFT.COM (Eric Thomas) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 17:03:52 -0600 (CST) Cc: mgg@sol.tins.net, jbuckman@shelby.com, rogerk@QueerNet.ORG, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199612022043.MAA06892@miles.greatcircle.com> from "Eric Thomas" at Dec 2, 96 08:12:52 pm Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >If every user gets exactly the same message, the task of analyzing > >bounced messages is a difficult one, as you need to write a parser which > >is savvy to all the different mail systems out there, since there are so > >many different kinds of error messages. > > Well, I don't think anyone on this forum ever claimed that writing a good > list manager was an easy task. If it were easy, there would be no room > for commercial products :-) > > >But, in almost all cases, bounced mail includes the header of the > >bounced message in the error message. > > Or rather, whatever the bouncing MTA calls a "header". For many systems, > this is actually what is left of the header after converting to the local > proprietary mail system. This may not include much more than date, > origin, recipient and subject. A feature I've always wanted to see in a MLM is some intelligence as to when to delve deeper on bounces. For example, if 'foo.com' is sending back bounced mail that can't be traced back to a particular list subscriber, then on the next message send out unique messages to everybody in that domain to see if that helps narrow the possibilities down somewhat. I do something like this manually every few months. I have a shell script that goes through my mailing lists and sends a test message to everybody, with the exact address that I'm sending to in the Subject header and in the body. 99% of the time I get back a bounce that lets me find bad addresses even if the MTA at the other end isn't very cooperative in its bounce message. On a few occasions, I've had to go into the sendmail logs to see what message ID went to what address. It also gives me a check on bad addresses at sites that refuse to follow the standards and send their bounces back to the author rather than to the envelope address. I could see this being a 'feature' that is invoked every X messages or time interval. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 22:25:22 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id WAA24530 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 22:17:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom17.netcom.com (netcom17.netcom.com [192.100.81.130]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id WAA24514 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 22:16:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (grafolog@localhost) by netcom17.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id GAA18832; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 06:16:39 GMT Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 06:16:39 +0000 (GMT) From: jonathon X-Sender: grafolog@netcom17 To: Mark Galbraith cc: jbuckman@shelby.com, rogerk@QueerNet.ORG, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Lyris In-Reply-To: <199612021818.KAA16491@sol.tins.net> Message-ID: x-no-archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Mark Galbraith wrote: > Can't the savvy user just look through the 'Received' headers to find > the lines that contain the "for" value. That's where I would look for MCIMail, for one, does not let the recipient look at at the 'Received' headers. In fact, the only headers the recipient can see are "From", "To", "Subject" and "Date". xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com SpamByte: The amount of spam Sanford Wallace sends to AOL in one 24 hour period. Roughly 1 000 Terabytes sent every 24 hours. T3 Connection: The connection that AOL needs to deal with the spam Sanford Wallaces send to them in one day, so that legitimate users can contact people at AOL. From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 3 08:55:32 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA03605 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 08:42:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mickey.umiacs.umd.edu (mickey.umiacs.umd.edu [128.8.120.49]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id IAA03402 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 08:41:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (kovert@localhost) by mickey.umiacs.umd.edu (8.8.4/UMIACS-0.9/04-05-88) id LAA04178; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 11:41:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199612031641.LAA04178@mickey.umiacs.umd.edu> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: changing the To: field Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 11:41:16 -0500 From: Todd Kover Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [ not quoting any previous text because I've long since deleted the messages about it. :-) ] One other big reason (that I hadn't seen yet) that argues strongly for not changing the 'To:' field of messages to that of the user that mail is being delivered for, is that it greatly increa