Dear Rick,
Thank you for all the help.
I finally got this thing under control even though there were some other
sendmail gottchas that still created duplicate (at least from the recipient's
view point.)
I had to do some experiments with Sendmail and learned that duplicate checking
is strict alpha-numeric duplicate check. Meaning "user1","user1@some.domain"
and "user1@host.some.domain" are considered all different address as well.
To make things worse "user1" also has other aliases like "FirstInitLast",
"Lastname","all-initials" and so on.
Also, one thing I haven't confirmed yet but curious about is, depends on
configuration, Sendmail batches the outgoing mail in chunk of 20,30, or
other sizes. I am wondering if this duplicate check happens before the
batching or after...
Guess its enough Sendmail talk and here is some summary of what's done for
other people who might have similar problem;
For parent list p_list and it's daughter(sub) lists s1_list,s2_list,...
in /etc/aliases file
p_list: "|/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper resend ......" <--- usual
:
p_list-outgoing: :include:/usr/local/majordomo/list/p_list.out
^^^^^^^^^^
where p_list.out contains;
s1_list-outgoing
s2_list-outgoing
:
)
and all the s$_lists aliases are usual configuration.
And notify the list-owners and users to be consistant in the subscriber address
usage!!! ;)
--
Best regards,
---
Troy S. Choi Integrated Systems, Inc.
Rick Green wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Troy S. Choi wrote:
>
> > Thank you for your help Rick.
> > But there were few things I could not understand.
> > Please bare with me and answer a few more questions.
> >
> > Rick Green wrote:
> > :
> > > 1) Set up the p_list alias to use resend.
> >
> > Do you mean "use resend" as;
> > p_list-outgoing: :include:/usr/local/majordomo/lists/p_list
> >
> Not exactly. Set up the main list alias so that messages will be piped
> thru the resend script to the outgoing alias, like this:
>
> p_list: "|/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper resend -l p_list p_list-outgoing"
>
> > :
> > > 3) make the p_list-outgoing alias point directly to the sub-list outgoing
> > > aliases:
> > > p_list-outgoing: "a-list-outgoing,b-list-outgoing,s-list-outgoing"
> >
> > I understand that you did explain that you are not an expert on sendmail but
> > don't I need to use the ":include:" in front of the mailing list?
> > In that case can I use the double-quoted, comma-seperated syntex?
> >
> Either would work. If the number of sub-lists is small, you can list
> them directly in the alias, as I showed in the example. If you have a
> long list of lists, or if you anticipate additions and/or deletions of
> sub-lists, then use the :include: syntax and place the list in a file.
> It would look like this:
> p_list-outgoing: :include:/usr/local/majordomo/lists/p_list
>
> I was looking for an explanation of the syntax permissible in the aliases
> file. As it turns out, `man alias` only documents the simple
> comma-delimited list. the 'pipe' form as well as the ':include:' form are
> documented towards the end of `man sendmail` (line 301, in the version on
> my Linux system).
>
> The important point I was trying to make, however, is that the addresses
> you place in the -outgoing alias, or in the list-of-lists, is in each
> case, the -outgoing alias for each list, not the main list address itself.
> In this way, the message goes thru resend only once, and if multiple
> copies hit sendmail due to the same address existing in several lists,
> They will actually be identical. If they went thru each lists's resend
> separately, they may differ slightly in headers, subject-prefix,
> message-fronter and -footer, etc., depending on differences in each list's
> .config file.
>
> At this point, I have to defer to a real sendmail expert, who may be able
> to tell you how to code your sendmail.cf so that the duplicates will
> actually be detected and eliminated.
>
>
> --
> Rick Green
> Please note my new address: <rtg@mich.com>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Microsoft has just announced it is renaming Windows NT version 5 to
> "Windows 2000."
> Is that the ultimate millennium bug or what?
References:
|
|
