Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Users
(March 1995)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Truncated subscriber lists!
From: rs0thp @ rohmhaas . com (Dr. Tom Pierce)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:29:32 -0500 (EST)
To: brian @ hyperreal . com (Brian Behlendorf)
Cc: majordomo-users @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: <> from "Brian Behlendorf" at Mar 15, 95 09:46:50 am

Previously, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 1995, Thomas Leavitt wrote:
> but it definitely brings up the point that majordomo just isn't designed 
> to deal with lists of more than a couple of thousand people - it takes 
> too long to do anything and is thus liable to conflicting processes, 
> system hangs because there's 12 concurrent processes all competing to 
> edit the same file, and a sysadmin who is forced to kill processes when 
> they are causing the machine to swap.
> Subscribes and unsubscribes are where it takes the longest amount of time 
> Anyways, with some modifications we've been able to support 45,000 people 
> modifications to majordomo along the lines of the following:
> Instead of modifying one huge list, majordomo splits the main list into a
> configurable number of sublists based on the domain name of the address. 
> I.e., for hotflash, in the lists directory there'd be a hotflash directory
> with files in it like "edu", "com", "uk", etc - thus, when majordomo has to

If it would work on subdomains, that would help me. I have 11,000 potential
list memebers and would like to use sub domains not .com.  We are all .com...

> Segments = edu,,com,uk

> sendmail delivery - when majordomo hands the message off to sendmail, 
> /etc/aliases is set up such that 39 parallel sendmail processes are fired 
> up

Interesting and batch sending would be useful

> Now here's the kicker - we'd *love* to contribute this back to the public 
> domain to be integrated into the next release of majordomo, but it's not 

> Is there a concensus that this is something the majordomo community could 
> use? 

I would like this functionality if I can avoid too much additional complexity.

> 1) making INDEX and GET not-list-related (yes, turning it into a file 
> server - make that an option in the config at least! :)

  ok an option I can avoid.

> 2) allow moderators to put Approved: headers at the top of the message 
> instead of in the mail headers, for those with mailers who can't edit 
> headers


> 3) having majordomo just die when accessed from particular hosts - 
> majordomo wages war on other autoreply daemons every now and then (vacation 
> programs that don't do the right thing and only send one reply a day, 
> etc) so being able to look in a list and find regular expressions to 
> match the address on are very useful


> Again, these are things we're willing to contribute to the majordomo 
> distribution.  Finally, we're working on a script to automate processing 
> of mail to list-owner, recognizing bouncing addresses and removing them 
> if they bounce too much or are completely wrong, which we think will be 
> able to eliminate about 90% of our work in that area (which now takes 
> about 10 man-hours per week, as roughly 1% of mailing list addresses go 
> bad per week - this is true for all lists I run).

This would be nice.

> What do people think?

As a user of majordomo I like it. But then I am grateful to those
who wrote majordomo and defer to their priorities.

Sincerely, Thomas Pierce - THPierce@RohmHaas.Com  -  Computational Chemist
"These opinions are those of the writer and not the Rohm and Haas Company."

Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Sending mail in batches & how to direct crap-posting to /dev/null
From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <>
Next: Re: Sending mail in batches & how to direct crap-posting to /dev/null
From: "John C. Orthoefer" <>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Truncated subscriber lists!
From: Brian Behlendorf <>
Next: Re: Truncated subscriber lists!
From: (Deborah A Hamilton)

Search Internet Search